TELECOM Digest     Sun, 31 Jul 94 12:52:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 342

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    NPA Readiness for 1995 (Greg Monti)
    "4A" Switches (Brent Geery)
    "Post-Pay" Payphone System (Brent Geery)
    HiPPI Switch Vendors Needed! (Scott D. Thomas)
    Envoy 100 Addressing (Lionel Keeping)
    Re: California vs Caller-ID (bkron@netcom.com)
    Re: California vs Caller-ID (Steven H. Lichter)
    Re: California vs Caller-ID (Lauren Weinstein)
    Re: Longest Time on Hold? (Ry Jones)
    Re: Longest Time on Hold? (Stan Schwartz)
    Re: Longest Time on Hold? (Thomas Lapp)
    Re: Longest Time on Hold? (Kevin Kadow)
    Re: Fraudulent 800 Number Sex Line Charges (bkron@netcom.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 GEnie.
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: Sat, 30 Jul 1994 19:11:37 EDT
From: Greg Monti <GMONTI@npr.org>
Subject: NPA Readiness for 1995


North America's Countdown to NPA Interchangeability in 1995

Interchangeable Codes Day is Sunday, January 15, 1995.

For purposes of this table, "toll calls" are calls that are
*individually itemized* on your local or long distance company phone
bill.  "Message unit" or "Zone Unit Measurement" or "Extended Area"
calls are not individually itemized on bills and I don't consider them
"toll" even though they cost something over and above local service.
If the local telco doesn't force you to dial them differently, and
doesn't bill them individually, then they are treating them like local
calls and so will I.

Premium calls like 976 are mentioned if I know about them.  Otherwise,
consider this table to be unreliable as to 976, etc., calls.

The "Ready for 1/95" column states whether the NPA has eliminated a
dialing plan that won't work once NPAs 249?, 281, 334, 360, 520, 562,
630, 931?, 941, 954 come on line.

Abbreviations 1+10D or 1+10 mean toll calls within the area code will
be dialed with a 1 followed by all 10 digits.  Abbreviations 7D or 7
mean toll calls within the area code will be dialed with just 7 digits
and will not have a "toll alerting" indicator.

"Within an area code" means just that, and has nothing
to do with LATAs, or with the number of telephone companies 
necessary to complete the call.

A LATA can be equal to, smaller than, or larger than an area code.  A
LATA can be equal to, smaller than, or larger than your local calling
area.

Key:  

No 1995 plan announced = no.                            
New plan announced, don't know if implemented = yes.
New plan announced, definitely not implemented or permitted = no.
New plan now implemented, but not mandatory; old one still permitted = yes.
New plan now implemented and is mandatory = yes.

                Toll 
                calls 
                within 
                NPA     Ready
        State   dialed  for
NPA     Prov    as      1/95?   Notes
        
201     NJ      7       yes     
202     DC      n/a     yes     there are no toll calls within 202
203     CT      1+10    yes     per Digest posting per cmoore@arl.mil;
                                1+10D permitted 2/28/94 per Bellcore
204     MB      1+10    yes     1+10D to be mandatory 9/94
205     AL      1+10    yes     1+10D mandatory 1990
206     WA      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 1991, mandatory 1992
207     ME      7       yes     7D announced 1992
208     ID      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 1993 all US West states
209     CA      7       yes     
210     TX      1+10    yes     has always been 1+10D toll
212     NY      n/a     yes     there are no toll calls within 212, 
                                540 & 976 premium services are 7D
213     CA      7       yes     has always been 7D for toll
214     TX      1+10    yes     
215     PA      7       yes     "no 1" campaign ran in 1992, when 1+7D 
                                eliminated
216     OH      1+10    yes     1+10D mandatory 1/1/95
217     IL      7       yes     Urbana book mentions "10D" without "1",
                                which won't work unless local calls within
                                217 are also 10D; later Bellcore source
                                says 7D, which I consider more reliable
218     MN      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 12/93, mandatory late 1994
219     IN      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 8/93
301     MD      1+10    yes     
302     DE      1+10    yes     1+10D permitted 4/1/94, mandatory 1/7/95
303     CO      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 1993, mandatory 2/27/94
304     WV      7       yes     7D mandatory 10/1/94 per cmoore@arl.mil
                                local calls to outside 304 will be 1+10D
305     FL      1+10    yes     1+10D announced early 93
306     SK      1+10    yes     1+10D to be mandatory 9/94
307     WY      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 1993 all US West states
308     NE      1+10    yes     1+10D announced for all US West states 12/93
309     IL      7       yes     per Bellcore source from varney@uscbu.att.com
310     CA      7       yes     
312     IL      n/a     yes     there are no toll calls within 312
313     MI      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 1993 (was to be 7D)
314     MO      1+10    yes     1+10D permissive 7/94 per Bellcore
315     NY      7       yes     per Bellcore source from varney@uscbu.att.com;
                                PSC may ask telcos to provide option for
                                mandatory 1+10D at subscriber's request
316     KS      1+10    yes     1+10D permissive 7/94 per Bellcore
317     IN      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 8/93, mandatory 12/1/93
318     LA      1+10    yes     1+10D permitted 9/4/93; mandatory 4/2/94
319     IA      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 12/93 all US West states
401     RI      1+10    yes     7D announced 1992, but
                                1+10D announced 1/94 to become mandatory
402     NE      1+10    yes     1+10D announced for all US West states 12/93;
                                Lincoln Tel portion 1+10D mandatory late 94
403     AB NT YT1+10    yes     1+10D to be mandatory 9/94
404     GA      1+10    yes     1+10D implemented 1989
405     OK      1+10    yes     1+10D permissive 7/94 per Bellcore
406     MT      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 1993 all US West states
407     FL      1+10    yes     1+10D announced early 93
408     CA      7       yes     inter-NPA calls were limited to 10D, without 
                                1+; 1+10D permitted 10/11/93; 
                                mandatory 10/10/94
409     TX      1+10    yes     1+10D permitted 7/94 per Bellcore
410     MD      1+10    yes     
412     PA      7       yes     not sure if 7D announced 9/93
                                later Bellcore source from alan.leon.varney
                                @att.com says 7D; comfirmed by 11/93 letter
413     MA      1+10    yes     originally to be 7D; Mass DPU was thought to  
                                have ordered 1+10D in 10/93, but J. Covert
                                reports no such order exists; bill stuffer
                                reported here confirms 1+10 is correct;
                                was mandatory 6/1/94 or 6/24/94
414     WI      1+10    yes     
415     CA      7       yes     has always been 7D toll
416     ON      1+10    yes     there are no toll calls within 416 except 976,
                                which are dialed 1 416 976-XXXX
417     MO      1+10    yes     1+10D permitted 7/94 per Bellcore
418     QC      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 10/93
419     OH      1+10D   yes     1+10D mandatory 1/1/95
501     AR      1+10    yes     1+10D permitted 7/94 per Bellcore
502     KY      1+10    yes     1+10D permitted 9/4/93; mandatory 4/2/94
503     OR      1+10    yes     1+10D announced mid 1992
504     LA      1+10    yes     1+10D permitted 9/4/93; mandatory 4/2/94
505     NM      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 1993 all US West states
506     NB      1+10    yes     1+10D to be mandatory 9/94
507     MN      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 12/93, mandatory late 1994
508     MA      1+10    yes     see note under 413; mandatory 9/94
509     WA      1+10    yes     1+10D permitted 5/15/94, mandatory 9/17/94
510     CA      7       yes     has always been 7D for toll
512     TX      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 1991
513     OH      1+10D   yes     1+10D mandatory 1/1/95
514     QC      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 10/93
515     IA      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 1993 all US West states
516     NY      7       yes     inter-NPA calls to be forced to 1+10D on 
                                9/24/94
                                540 & 976 premium services are 7D
517     MI      1+10    yes     1+10D permitted 5/1/94
518     NY      7       yes     per Bellcore source from varney@uscbu.att.com;
                                PSC may ask telcos to provide option for
                                mandatory 1+10D at subscriber's request
519     ON      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 10/93
601     MS      1+10    yes     1+10D mandatory 12/93
602     AZ      1+10    yes     1+10D mandatory 1990
603     NH      7       yes     7D announced 1992; but per-line blocking
                                to be available to subs who don't want 7D toll;
                                they will be forced to dial 1+10D
604     BC NT AK1+10    yes     1+10D intra-NPA toll to be mandatory 9/94;
                                Hyder, AK, is in 604 per previous postings here
605     SD      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 12/93
606     KY      1+10    yes     1+10D permitted 9/4/93; mandatory 4/2/94
607     NY      7       yes     per Bellcore source from varney@uscbu.att.com;
                                PSC may ask telcos to provide option for
                                mandatory 1+10D at subscriber's request
608     WI      1+10    yes     
609     NJ      7       yes     1+7 disallowed beginning 9/93 per bill stuffer
610     PA      1+10    yes     1+10D mandatory 12/93 (was to inherit 7D 
                                from 215) or is it still 7D?  any news?
612     MN      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 12/93, mandatory late 1994
613     ON      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 10/93
614     OH      1+10D   yes     1+10D mandatory 1/1/95
615     TN      1+10    yes     1+10D posted on pay phones 9/93
616     MI      1+10    yes     1+10D permitted 5/1/94
617     MA      1+10    yes     see note under 413; mandatory 9/94
618     IL      7       yes     per Bellcore source from varney@uscbu.att.com
619     CA      7       yes     7D toll announced 9/93
701     ND      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 12/93
702     NV      1+10    yes     1+10D permitted 7/94 per Bellcore
703     VA      1+10    yes     1+10D mandatory 1987
704     NC      1+10    yes     1+10D mandatory 1990
705     ON      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 10/93
706     GA      1+10    yes     inherited 1+10D from 404
707     CA      7       yes     7D announced 10/93
708     IL      n/a     yes     there are no toll calls within 708
709     NF      1+10    yes     1+10D to be mandatory 9/94
712     IA      1+10    yes     1+10D announced for all US West states 12/93
713     TX      1+10    yes     1+10D mandatory 12/7/91
714     CA      7       yes     7D toll began in early 1980s
715     WI      1+10    yes     
716     NY      7       yes     Rochester LATA, per Telecom Digest 787;
                                NYNEX portion may be 1+10D;
                                matches Bellcore source from varney@
                                uscbu.att.com;
                                PSC may ask telcos to provide option for
                                mandatory 1+10D at subscriber's request
717     PA      7       yes     7D announced 11/93
718     NY      n/a     yes     there are no toll calls within 718,
                                540 & 976 premium services are 7D
719     CO      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 1993, mandatory 2/27/94
801     UT      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 1993 all US West states
802     VT      1+10    yes     7D announced 1992; but
                                1+10D announced 2/94 to become mandatory
803     SC      1+10    yes     1+10D posted on pay phones 9/93
804     VA      1+10    yes     1+10D permitted 5/18/94; mandatory 11/16/94
805     CA      7       yes     1+7D still allowed in Pac Bell portion, 
                                for now
806     TX      1+10    yes     1+10D permitted 7/94 per Bellcore
807     ON      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 10/93
808     HI      1+10    yes     1+10D permitted 6/19/94 per Bellcore
809     Caribb  1+10    yes     1+10D mandatory 1/9/95; one exception:
                                St. Vincent, Turks & Caicos = 01+10D;
810     MI      1+10    yes     
812     IN      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 8/93
813     FL      1+10    yes     1+10D announced early 93
814     PA      7       yes     not sure if 7D announced 9/93
                                later Bellcore source from alan.leon.varney@
                                att.com says 7D
815     IL      7       yes     per Bellcore source from varney@uscbu.att.com
816     MO      1+10    yes     1+10D permitted 7/94 per Bellcore
817     TX      1+10    yes     1+10D currently mandatory
818     CA      7       yes     has always been 7D toll
819     QC NT   1+10    yes     1+10D announced 10/93
901     TN      1+10    yes     1+10D posted on pay phones 9/93
902     NS PE   1+10    yes     1+10D to be mandatory 9/94
903     TX      1+10    yes     has always been 1+10D toll
904     FL      1+10    yes     1+10D announced early 93
905     ON      1+10    yes     has always been 1+10D toll
906     MI      1+10    yes     1+10D permitted 2/1/94 per Bellcore
907     AK      1+10    yes     1+10D permitted now; mandatory 1/1/95
908     NJ      7       yes     has always been 7D toll
909     CA      7       yes     
910     NC      1+10    yes     
912     GA      1+10    yes     1+10D mandatory 8/92
913     KS      1+10    yes     1+10D permitted 7/94 per Bellcore
914     NY      7       yes     inter-NPA calls to be forced to 1+10D on 
                                9/24/94
                                540 & 976 premium services are 7D
915     TX      1+10    yes     1+10D permitted 7/94 per Bellcore
916     CA      7       yes     7D announced 9/93
917     NY      n/a     yes     there are no toll calls within 917; however, 
                                since all outbound calls from 917 are 
                                cellular, there is a premium airtime charge 
                                on most of them
918     OK      1+10    yes     1+10D permitted 7/94 per Bellcore
919     NC      1+10    yes     1+10D mandatory 1990

                        143     Total NANP NPAs

                        143     NPAs ready for 1995
                        0       NPAs not ready for 1995
                                
                        33      ready NPAs using 7D solution so far
                        104     ready NPAs using 1+10D solution so far
                        6       ready NPAs not requiring a solution (no 
                                intra-NPA tolls)

                        0       non-ready NPAs using 7D but still 10D for 
                                inter-NPA
                        0       non-ready NPAs still using 1+7D

And I thought this was going to stretch all the way to January ...
Corrections are welcomed.  Mail to me, I'll re-post summary.  Thanks
to Ala.Leon.Varney@att.com for providing the new Bellcore updates.


Greg Monti, Tech Mgr, FISPO, Distribution Division
National Public Radio          Phone:    202 414-3343
635 Massachusetts Av NW        Fax:      202 414-3036
Washington, DC  20001-3753     Internet: gmonti@npr.org

------------------------------

Subject: "4A" Switches
From: cntinuum!brent.geery@uplherc.upl.com (Brent Geery)
Date: 31 Jul 94 01:10:00 GMT
Organization: The Continuum - South Pasadena, CA - 818-441-2625
Reply-To: cntinuum!brent.geery@uplherc.upl.com (Brent Geery)


Does anyone (Pat?) know in what areas Bell still uses the old 4A
switches?  Anyone have a list of the exchanges that have yet to be
upgraded?  Just wondering.


BRENT

          The Continuum   -*-       South Pasadena, California  
  (818) 441-2625 for 9600 and faster (818) 799-9633 for 2400 and slower

------------------------------

Subject: "Post-Pay" Payphone System
From: cntinuum!brent.geery@uplherc.upl.com (Brent Geery)
Date: 31 Jul 94 01:26:00 GMT
Organization: The Continuum - South Pasadena, CA - 818-441-2625
Reply-To: cntinuum!brent.geery@uplherc.upl.com (Brent Geery)


A few years back, I used to hear about a system that was supposed to
be in use throughout Canada and the rural U.S.  It was described as
the "Post-Pay" payphone system.  It worked by letting you dial and
connect with your party FIRST.  It then asked you to deposit your
money.  You could hear the other party, but the phone cut off your
mouthpiece until you gave it your change.

That's how it was explained to me anyways ... I was wondering if these
this are still in use anywhere, and if so where?  I haven't seen one
of these myself, but when I was first told about them, I was told they
were the 'latest-thing' with the independent payphone companies
(because the phone does the billing - not the company) and were
spreading all over the place.

Any help would be appreciated.


         The Continuum   -*-       South Pasadena, California
 (818) 441-2625 for 9600 and faster (818) 799-9633 for 2400 and slower


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, there is nothing new about
payphones like this; they have been around for years and tend to be in
places where for whatever reason telco finds it difficult to return
coins deposited in the phone in the event of no answer/busy. Quite a
few of the early COCOTs used this method also. They found out they were
getting ripped off a lot by people using them for calls where only a
*one sided conversation* had to take place, such as recorded weather
information, etc. I mean, in those cases, who cared if the mouthpiece
opened or not. Ditto the prank callers who just wanted to make someone's
phone ring and give them dead silence when they answered, etc. Even when
used legitimatly, those phones are a nuisance since half the time the
caller does not have his coins ready for deposit and the called party
is left hanging with no one (that they can tell) on the line. As luck
would have it, I used one of those once and by the time I got my money
inserted the called party had said 'hello' twice, taken it to be a lewd
call and disconnected, just a second or two after my money went in the
box. I admit it was my own slowness in getting the money inserted. Still
it was annoying to have the called party ring off since when I hung up
to redial of course my money dropped in the box anyway.  PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 31 Jul 1994 00:28:10 GMT
From: sthomas@mitchell.hac.com (Scott D. Thomas)
Subject: HiPPI Switch Vendors Needed!
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Company


I'm on a tight schedule, and need to find out who offers a HiPPI
switch.

If you know of any sources, please email me.  thanks in advance.


Scott Thomas                       
Hughes Information Technology Corp.
e-mail: sthomas@mitchell.hitc.com  
 phone: (703) 759-1382             
   fax: (703) 438-8430             

------------------------------

From: lkeeping@random.ucs.mun.ca (Lionel Keeping)
Subject: Envoy 100 Addressing
Date: 30 Jul 1994 03:28:11 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The text of this message was lost in 
processing; I cannot recover it. I believe Mr. Keeping wants assistance
with Envoy 100 addressing. If anyone wants to help him, please write
him direct.   PAT]


(His signature got through okay.)

Lionel Keeping         Internet: lkeeping@random.ucs.mun.ca
Corner Brook, NF       Packet  : VO1LMK@VO1RZ.NF.CAN.NOAM
Canada                 "A Newfie's a Newfie wherever he goes" - Simani

------------------------------

From: bkron@netcom.com (Kronos)
Subject: Re: California vs Caller-ID
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 1994 08:09:43 GMT


antonio@qualcomm.com (Franklin Antonio) writes:

> Are Californians going to get Caller-ID in my lifetime?

Actually, California did have Caller-ID a couple of years ago and,
according to a Pacific Bell employee I spoke to around then, they
withdrew it because word got out as to how many people had line
blocking.  Now you know why whenever you see an article about
Caller-ID in a newspaper, the telco employee always "won't reveal
those statistics" when referring to line block numbers.

It seems Caller-ID is one of those things everyone wants to use, but
nobody wants to participate in.  Here in Washington State, the Domino's 
just put in their Caller-ID and they tell me virtually all of their calls 
are from blocked phones.  Everyone I know has a line block -- even
those who sign up for the receiving end of the service!  Kind of like
a landfill!


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I was amused a year ago when I was doing
that Digital Detective project how many people did everything they could
to avoid any sort of reference to themselves ... yet they were more than
willing -- and quite eager -- to spy on others. The fact that people who
use Caller-ID the most deny others the information on themselves is not
anything new.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: co057@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven H. Lichter)
Subject: Re: California vs Caller-ID
Date: 31 Jul 1994 17:37:07 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)


Franklin Antonio writes about Caller-ID:

> I live in California. My friends in other states have Caller-ID, but
> I do not.  I have not followed the regulatory battle over Caller-ID.
> I remember seeing stories on it many months ago. I figured people
> would argue, and things would get settled, and Caller-ID would
> eventually be available to Californians.

It seems that the PUC has taken issue with the FCC and has taken the
whole thing to court in order to get the new regulations overruled by
the court.

To me this seems like the persons who are supposed to be acting in the
interest of the people acting as if we don't know anything and or we
work for them. Or worse, acting to help the creeps that seem to pop up
once in a while in the telemarketing business and try and sell people
The Internet for $29.99 down and $29.99 for the rest of your life.

I think the PUC have overstepped its bounds and should be put out of
business since they have not done much to keep rates in anything they
regulate within reason.

The above statements have nothing to do with my employeer, so there!!!

-=- Sysop: Apple Elite II -=- an Ogg-Net Hub BBS 
    (909) 359-5338 12/24/96/14.4 V32/V42bis 

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 31 Jul 94 10:04 PDT
From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Re: California vs. Caller-ID


 From: antonio@qualcomm.com (Franklin Antonio)

> I waited ... and nothing happened.  What is the present state of
> affairs?  Are Californians going to get Caller-ID in my lifetime?

Californians could get calling number ID right now if the telephone
companies were willing to offer it under the terms the CPUC set
forth -- free per-line blocking, education campaign, etc.  Realizing
that in a state where the majority of people have non-published lines
the number who would request per-line blocking would be vast, they
decided not to offer CNID services at this time.

A recent FCC decision, which would take effect next year, would
require that all telcos send calling number data on interstate calls,
and mandates the availability of per-call blocking.  It would also
preempt the states where per-line blocking was mandated, effectively
limiting blocking to per-call (there are complications regarding
intrastate vs. interstate calls, but this simpler description is
adequate for here).

The result of this FCC decision has been an unprecedented negative
reaction by state regulators.  Several large states have filed
lawsuits to try block the FCC preemption of their regulations and
other states have also filed various requests for reconsideration to
the FCC and V.P. Gore.  (See the PRIVACY Forum archives [via FTP] on
"ftp.vortex.com" for copies of some of these materials from the New
York PSC.)

The upshot of all this is that the ultimate status of the FCC ruling
remains to be seen, and the war between per-call and per-line blocking
(which is what this all now boils down to in many respects) has yet to
be decided.

 --Lauren--

P.S.  For information about the Internet PRIVACY Forum digest, please send a
      message with the line:

          information privacy

      as the first text in the BODY of a message (subject doesn't matter) to:

          privacy-request@vortex.com

 --LW--

------------------------------

From: rjones@halcyon.halcyon.com (Ry Jones)
Subject: Re: Longest Time on Hold?
Date: 30 Jul 1994 21:40:12 GMT
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc.


> "Edison ... all representatives are busy. For normal business matters,
> please call between ?? am and ?? pm Monday through Friday. To report a
> service outage, please remain on the line. We are extremely busy at the
> present time. Calls are answered in the order received. Estimated time
> on hold will be (here the recording paused, as the computer figured out
> who all was waiting, then a dismembered voice cut in) 'greater than ten
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^--disembodied? :)

> minutes'. Apparently between one and ten minutes they tell you in their
> estimation how many minutes it will be. Above that, they just say it
> will be 'greater than ten minutes'. 

I called Informix (a database vendor) with a problem once. I was put
on hold for about 1/2 hour (on my dime, too!) hearing this voice cut
in through horrid muzak every minute stating "We expect a wait of no
longer than 5 minutes". When the tech answered, I let off some steam
at being on hold with no human intervention for so long. He said, "It
looks like you were only on hold for 3 minutes, sir". We eventually
figured out that the people who tracked the on-hold status of callers
decided a reasonable limit to hold times would be five minutes, and
all hold-time calculations were based on (time on hold) mod 5 minutes.
So every five minutes your clock reset. They pick up calls in the
order of who has been on hold longest so ... you oscilate a lot.

I want to know how that skewed the customer service response time
statistics for them. And this from a major database company ... sheesh.


rjones@halcyon.com      OG+GOT;


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Chicago Transit Authority is notorious
for long holding times on their information line as is Greyhound. CTA
gets 8000-10,000 calls per 24 hours asking about busses and trains. They
are blunt in their opening recorded greeting:

"Please! Have a pencil and paper ready when we answer. Be prepared to
tell us where you are located now, where you wish to go and when you
wish to travel. Please do not hang up and redial, you will simply go
to the back of the line and wait even longer!"

Apparently -- and this is discourteous to other callers -- some people
actually call them, have them look up the information and *then* say
'well please wait while I go find something to write with and some paper'.
And there are a large number of callers who are only 'shopping'; that is
they call and one agent tells them one schedule. They don't like that one
and call again so that another agent will tell them something else. Then
they can claim 'well when I called a few minutes ago someone told me 
something else' ... never mind that they probably phrased their question
differently the first time which accounts for the different answer. A
certain number are what the Transit Authority phone room calls 'hoppers'.
That is, they dial and when they get the recording they hang up and dial
back. They may do this several times, during what would have been overall
a two or three minute connection in total (holding time plus discussion
time) into half an hour .. then *they* call or write the general office
to complain that they tried to get information but 'could not get waited
on by anyone; they ignored me and left me holding ...'. Try telling these
folks that immediatly when they hang up their place in the line is going
to be seized by someone else; they have no conception of what you are
talking about. Transit Authority used to be notorious, with holding times
of ten to fifteen minutes; lately it has been much, much better.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: stans@panix.com (Stan Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Longest Time on Hold?
Date: 30 Jul 1994 20:00:09 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC


ARTHUR%MPA15C@MPA15AB.mv-oc.Unisys.COM wrote:

> Pat, the tribulations of being stuck on hold came up on our internal
> corporate E Mail network, and I submitted the following as part of the
> thread.  It was suggested to me that this might be a weird enough
> story to be of interest to TELECOM Digest readers, perhaps sparking a
> round of one-upsmanship.

OK, here's my "Hold" story:
 
A few years ago, before TicketMaster owned all the ticket outlets in
the free world, tickets for Jones Beach concerts were handled by
Teletron, the phone division of Ticketron (remember them?).  Jones
Beach has a series of about 20 to 30 concerts every summer, ranging
from Barry Manilow to Van Halen, and tickets for all the concerts go
on sale on the same Saturday in May every year.

I called Teletron the night before, just to verify when the phones
would open in the morning.  I got the "We're closed for the evening"
recording, but I was on the speaker and busy on the computer so I
didn't hang up right away.  The call, instead of hanging up, dropped
into the hold queue.  I got "All representatives are busy..." and
music.  This was at 10:30pm, when tickets were to go on sale at 9am
the next day.  It was a local call, so I played the "What ime, and
left the phone off hook all night.  I went back to the phone at 8:45
the next morning, and I was still on hold!  I waited it out, and at
9:00:01, Teletron answered and was more than happy to sell me second
row tickets for my parents to see Frank Sinatra.  Geez, it's too bad
they closed that phone room down! ;-)


Stan

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 31 Jul 94 10:41:23 EDT
From: Thomas Lapp <thomas%mvac23.uucp@louie.udel.edu>
Subject: Re: Longest Time on Hold?


> Pat, the tribulations of being stuck on hold came up on our internal
> corporate E Mail network, and I submitted the following as part of the
> thread.  It was suggested to me that this might be a weird enough
> story to be of interest to TELECOM Digest readers, perhaps sparking a
> round of one-upsmanship.

If Carl Moore hasn't submitted it yet, I'll bite on this one.  The
Friday edition of the Wilmington, DE {News-Journal} had a front page
article of a lady complaining that repeated calls to the local IRS
office were always busy.  When she contacted an operator to see if the
line was defective, she was told that it was all quiet -- ie. on hold.
The lady claimed that that it had been on hold for about a month.  The
article goes on to interview people associated with the IRS who say
that it wasn't true, and they could get through when they tried, so I
will call this an unsubstantiated record.


tom
internet     : mvac23!thomas@udel.edu  or  thomas%mvac23@udel.edu (home)
             : lapp@cdcmvx.dnet.dupont.com (work)
OSI          : C=US/A=MCI/S=LAPP/D=ID=4398613
uucp         : {ucbvax,mcvax,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas
Location     : Newark, DE, USA


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Hey, try sometime calling Greyhound in
Chicago and *ever* getting them to answer the phone, period. The station
here in Skokie gets a huge overflow of phone calls from all over the
Chicago area from people trying to get bus schedule and fare information.
The explanation is always the same: I've tried for two days to reach the
national 800 number without success and can't reach the Chicago station
either.   PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 30 Jul 94 22:29 CDT
From: kadokev@ripco.com (Kevin Kadow)
Subject: Re: Longest Time on Hold?


Re the squirrel story ...

Thanks for the laugh. I have a serious dislike for Chicago rodents in
general. Lately skunks have been the most trouble though. My house is
now on the fourth drop wire (phone line) in five years, all due to
squirrel damage. Too bad there's not enough current in there to kill
them, though the still have a short lifespan in my neighborhood ...

------------------------------

From: bkron@netcom.com (Kronos)
Subject: Re: Fraudulent 800 Number Sex Line Charges
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 1994 08:41:27 GMT


cntinuum!brent.geery@uplherc.upl.com (Brent Geery) writes:

>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is one company in Florida I am
>> aware of which will put you in business right away as a 900 Information
>> Provider for $100.

Actually, this is a scam.  The fact that these numbers are widely
advertised to the general public in infomercials is a reliable indicator 
that the money-making potential for this product has long-since past.

Here's how this scam works: You "buy" a 900 number for, say, $99.  Or
even free, it doesn't matter.  You think that all you have to do now
is buy a new book of deposit slips.  Hardly.  They assign you your
number with a program attached (psychic, horrorscope, or the
euphemistic "dateline" which is nothing more than a collection of
years-old messages or bogus ads recorded by hired talent).  The
agreement is usually something like this: The bureau you got the
number from "charges" you around $1/minute for running the program and
handling the accounting.  Anything over that that you charge is
"yours."  Let's assume you charge $2/minute for this example.

Now the bureau buys the network service usually from MCI for about
.30/minute.  That means they are guaranteed .70/minute profit for
every minute you generate.  However, your $1 part gets hit by the
following deductions before you get it: Chargebacks (people who don't
pay for their calls, as high as 50% for these program classifications,
have the full retail value of their calls -- $2 minute -- charged
against your proceeds), uncollectable holdback (now 10% of retail),
and others things like excise tax and the like.  Now your $1 is down
to around 30 cents.  This is your margin!

To make money this way, you would have to absorb advertising expenses,
which are exorbitant, and still have something left over.  This is
impossible.  In order to generate enough volume to make any money, you
would have to have the market to yourself.  Look in any weekly
newspaper and you'll see hundreds of postage-stamp-sized ads for these
numbers placed by people who get caught up in this.  What happens is
that, before long, you've wiped out your savings and you "give up" the
number, which the bureau quickly recycles to the next mark.

Some disgusting twists: Some bureaus are now requiring that you place
all advertising through their own "in-house" ad agency, meaning they
get the 20% agency commission from the publisher.  And recently I
heard of a pyramid scheme where you are encouraged to get several
numbers so you can re-sell them to your friends!

There was a time when the 900-number business was like a money-printing 
machine.  But that all changed years ago.  The only money to be made
in the business now is selling the 900 numbers, or being a telephone
company of course.  Unless you can advertise for free, its a guaranteed 
money loser for the starry-eyed would-be information provider.  And
the only people who can advertise for free are magazine and newspaper
publishers (that's where you see those big full-page spreads for their
own 900 lines), and broadcasters (those long informercials are run by
companies either owned by the broadcaster or else in whom the broadcaster 
has a financial interest).


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Generally what you say is true. I think
there is still some money to be made in 900/976 hot chat, particularly
to gay clientele in the USA. But that's about it unless you have a 
really good product otherwise and very low cost lines. I think you are
almost better off to provide information via straight dialup lines and
use some sort of credit card billing and/or cash in the mail (to have
a user account set up in your name, etc. At least on those the rules
are a lot different.  PAT]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #342
******************************
