Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA15724; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 13:17:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 13:17:34 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604241717.NAA15724@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #201 TELECOM Digest Wed, 24 Apr 96 13:17:30 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 201 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson More on the NANP Caribbean NPA's (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: ATT Free Internet Access Status? (Bob Smith) Re: ATT Free Internet Access Status? (Bill Kinch) Re: ATT Free Internet Access Status? (Basavaraj Patil) Re: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified? (Zev Rubenstein) Re: Re: FTP Sites With ITU Standards - Answers Needed (Robert Shaw) Re: Last Laugh! Re: NYNEX "Time" Number is Wrong (Linc Madison) Re: Cellular Rates, NYC and Elsewhere (Fred Atkinson) 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: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.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: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 11:01:11 -0700 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: More on the NANP Caribbean NPA's Well, I'm "closing in" on the new Caribbean NPA's after some telephone calls and email inquiries directly of the Caribbean local telephone companies: NANP Caribbean recompilation (as of Tuesday 9 April 1996) (with additional information on Wednesday 23 April 1996) Begin End New permissive permissive NPA Location dialing dialing 242 (BHA) Bahamas ................. 01 OCT 96 31 MAR 97 246 --- Barbados ................ 01 JUL 96 15 JAN 97 264 (ANG) Anguilla ................(dates to be announced) 268 (ANT) Antigua/Barbuda ......... 01 APR 96 31 MAR 97 284 (BVI) British Virgin Is. ......(dates to be announced) 340 --- U.S.Virgin Is. ..........(dates to be announced) 345 --- Cayman Is. ..............(dates to be announced) 441 --- Bermuda ................. 01 OCT 95 30 SEP 96 473 (GRE) Grenada/Carricou ........(dates to be announced) 649 **RESERVED** (location and dates to be announced) 664 (MNI) Montserrat Is. .......... 01 JUL 96 01 JUN 97 758 (SLU) St.Lucia ................ 01 JUL 96 01 JAN 97 767 (ROS) Dominica ................(dates to be announced) 784 **RESERVED** (location and dates to be announced) 787 (PUR/PTR) Puerto Rico ........... 01 MAR 96 31 JAN 97 868 (TNT) Trinidad & Tobago .......(dates to be announced) 869 --- St.Kitts/Nevis ..........(dates to be announced) 876 --- Jamaica .................(dates to be announced) (767=ROS for Dominica is probably because the capital of Dominica is a town named Roseau) POSSIBLE assignments of above RESERVED codes [these are *MY* assumptions]: 784 (SVG/SVI) St.Vincent & Grenadines (Bequia, Mustique, Palm, Union) 649 --- Turks & Caicos As to who should be keeping 809, it has been mentioned *many* times that: 809 should remain The Dominican Republic Of those which have "dates to be announced", only the following have "official" Bellcore announcements as to their location (although Bellcore states that the dates are TBA), as per their webpage or by Bellcore IL (Information letter): 284 British Virgin Is. 473 Grenada/Carricou 868 Trinidad & Tobago 869 St.Kitts & Nevis The following which have "dates to be announced" have *not* yet been "officially" announced by Bellcore, but I have determined these from email inquiries or telephone conversations with each local Caribbean telco: 264 Anguilla 340 U.S.Virgin Is. 345 Cayman Is. (I was told about this one by the C&W Cayman rep at the INC) 767 Dominica 876 Jamaica From telephone conversations with the local telcos, I found out that about three years ago, at the annual NANP Caribbean 809 Carrier's meeting, most of the non-US telcos voted that Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Is. "leave" 809 and be assigned a new NPA of their own, as Puerto Rico has always had the largest number of NXX Central Office Codes in 809, as well as had the largest growth. It was determined that 340 be assigned to PR/USVI, and the remainder of the Caribbean (non-US) remain 809. Of course, that has since changed. Two years ago, Bermuda elected to leave 809 for various reasons. (Bermuda isn't actually a geographic part of the Caribbean, but rather a "British" island in the Atlantic, well north of Puerto Rico and well east of North/South Carolina). And since, every island country/territory seems to have requested an area code of their own. Last year, before we were informed about 787 being assigned to Puerto Rico, Steve Grandi's (grandi@noao.edu) compilation list of new NPA's indicated that 340 was going to be for Puerto Rico, but that it was an "unconfirmed rumor". Well, the above explains that 340 *was indeed* anticipated at one time for *both* PR/USVI. At the INC meeting, one of the handouts from Bellcore NANPA had a number of "reserved" codes for the Caribbean. One of those "reserved" codes was 340. Please note that those codes which have not (yet) been "officially" announced by Bellcore might *NOT* have been given final approval by the Government or regulatory authority in that Caribbean NANP island country. As for *MY* assumption indicated above for 784 (St.Vincent & the Grenadines) and 649 (Turks & Caicos Is), I make that since 784 spells out SVI or SVG, therefore 649 would "default" as "reserved" for Turks & Caicos Is. But I would have thought that 876 would have been for the US Virgin Islands, as 876 spells out VRN. Of course that turned out to be an erroneous assumption on my part, as 876 is "reserved" for Jamaica, and 340 is "reserved" for the US Virgin Islands as described above. I was also informed that the 1996 annual 809 Carrier's meeting will be held in June. This might be the *last* meeting known as the 809 meeting. My telephone and email contacts with the local Caribbean telcos told me that they would let me know of any additional details! (Bellcore's Numbering and TRA webpage can be reached at http://www.bellcore.com/NANP) MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.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 ------------------------------ From: BobS Subject: Re: ATT Free Internet Access Status? Date: 24 Apr 1996 09:55:18 GMT Organization: DataNet Communications Company - Olympia,WA tom@ssd.hcsc.com (Tom Horsley) wrote: (TEXT DELETED) anything of my software kit, so I'm just wondering if >anyone out there has actually gotten signed up for this and is using it? Yep! I am and have been for sometime now. Its the normal 'stuff' nothing special about it, you can use NS/IE..etc. Fact it evens works with MS new Mail/News software. > (You'd think if it was just a PPP connection, they'd let you sign-up > online and download just enough info to negotiate the login so you > wouldn't have to wait for them to mail out software). They could -- but you get a encrypted login ID/PW and IP. Best to call them and ask where is your copy ... Bob here ... ------------------------------ From: bkinch@ix.netcom.com (Bill Kinch) Subject: Re: ATT Free Internet Access Status? Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 11:19:32 GMT Organization: Netcom Reply-To: bkinch@ix.netcom.com tom@ssd.hcsc.com (Tom Horsley) wrote: > When AT&T announced their free internet access program, the press > releases said people who signed up would start getting their kits in > the mail around mid-March. Its now past mid-April, and I still haven't > seen anything of my software kit, so I'm just wondering if anyone out > there has actually gotten signed up for this and is using it? > If there are users out there, can you tell us if it is just a standard > PPP connection to a server? Or are there proprietary AT&T protocols > involved so you absolutely have to use their software? Or has no one > gotten it yet? (Or perhaps they are planning to have "shipping > difficulties" for the whole free access year, thus avoiding Sprint's > mistake with Free Fridays :-). > (You'd think if it was just a PPP connection, they'd let you sign-up > online and download just enough info to negotiate the login so you > wouldn't have to wait for them to mail out software). Most of the people I know who signed up shortly after it was announced, are now receiving their "Free" software. I installed mine last Sunday. You must install their software to begin. It came on a CD-ROM and there were no problems installing it. You must then go through an on-line registration process to set up your account. The only problems I have heard of concern other instances of 16-bit Netscape on the system including those that may be in Quicken or TurboTax. Once you are registered, you may use their (16-bit) version of Netscape, Eudora etc. or, if you have Windows 95, you may set up a DUN connection (instructions are on their home page) and use whatever 32-bit apps you desire. I am using Agent 32-99 and Netscape 2.01. I am trying out the 5 free hours to start. It seems OK so far, but I've been using it only a few days. I still do most of my work on my old ISP account. Bill Kinch Software Consultant ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 15:14:16 +0000 From: basavaraj patil Subject: Re: ATT Free Internet Access Status? Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, TX Barry Margolius, NYC (bfm@pobox.com) wrote: > I just received my AT&T Worldnet CDROM: I installed it last night. > There is a proprietary installation routine that uses a highly > stripped down version of Netscape to call what I believe is an AT&T > private Intranet purely for registration (thus avoiding exposing your > credit card on the public Internet). After that it installs a rather > normal version of Netscape 1.1 and Eudora. I'm told they use standard > PPP to connect, thought I've not had time to test this out yet. Their > install program creates a REG.INI file that has all the necessary > TCP/IP and login info. > I had to call twice for my software. There seems to be considerable > variability as to delivery of the software: some folks get it in a > week or two, while others take several weeks/months. I got my software about a month back (3.5" disks). Installation was no problem. However registration is a nightmare. The software dials an 800 number and then starts up a netscape session. The only problem is that it takes forever to complete the registration. I have left my machine running for more than an hour and still failed to complete the registration. I have given up on the worldnet service as it is next to impossible to get registered. :) Raj Patil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 09:40:42 -0500 From: zev@wireless.attmail.com (zev) Subject: Re: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified? PAT wrote: > When I say 'national database' I mean that AT&T/Sprint/MCI/Bell telcos/ > LDDS/a few others consult this database and honor it. Some further background on this "database". It is actually a "distributed" database, in that there is not a single one, but many all over the country. Prior to breaking up AT&T (divestiture), the database that kept all of the necessary information was called the Billing Validation Application (BVA). The BVA had two types of information: calling card and Billed Number Screening (BNS). The BNS data included information on the phone to which the call was being billed. So, in the case of collect calls to a payphone, the BVA would indicate that the phone number being billed was not allowed to be billed for collect calls. The BVA was, again, a series of databases around the country that split all of the information by area code. AT&T's operator system switches would process calling card, collect and bill to third (B23) calls by collecting the billing information (either the calling card number or the collect or B23 number) from the calling party, and send a data query to the database via a high-speed packet network using a protocol called Signaling System 6 (SS6), which was a precursor to the current SS7 signaling system. This system uses Signaling Transfer Points (STPs) to route the queries to the appropriate database using the calling card or phone number as a routing destination. Hence, the BVAs could be segmented by area code, since back then all of the calling cards were phone-number based. Usually, only the first three digits of a number were enough to determine which BVA to send the query to. With divestiture, Judge Green required that the database be split up as well. However, the baby bells had no packet network infrastructure. So, he gave them seven years from divestiture to do so, and in the meantime the BVA became a "Shared Network Facility". AT&T managed the hardware and the network connections, and the local exchange companies (LECs) managed the data. Smaller LECs usually paid the larger regional bell company to manage their data for them. AT&T took care of adding new BVA databases as the number of phones and calling cards grew. When the time was up, the LECs (the 7 baby bells plus SNET, GTE) had developed (with Bellcore) their new databases: Line Information Data Bases (LIDBs). In addition, they had built SS7 network infrastructures. Each regional bell offered to store the smaller LEC data in their LIDB, just as they had previously managed that data in the BVA. In addition, the US Intelco company build a LIDB and an SS7 network to supply services to the smaller LECs. AT&T, in the meantime, built their own calling card database, as did Sprint and MCI. With this new infrastructure also came new business arrangements for honoring and billing calling card calls. Today, all of the LECs tend to honor all of the larger LD calling cards and vice versa, and to do so the networks are connected to eachother for sending those queries to the LIDB and card databases. Note, however, that MCI and Sprint implemented their card databases to be accessed via 800 dialing or by access code dialing (10XXX) in order to force the call to their networks. That is, for a local call, if you entered 0+ the called number, you would get the LEC bong tone and could enter either a LEC card or an AT&T card number. Hoever, to make a local call with the MCI or Sprint card, you would need to dial an 800 number or 10XXX to force the call to the MCI or Sprint operator services switch. I would agree with PAT that your serving LEC should agree to mark your numbers for free, but I suspect (groundlessly, I admit) that those many numbers are business numbers, and LECs tend to have a different (read: "higher") pricing structure for business customers vs. residence customers. You might try complaining to your local PUC. Zev Rubenstein zev@attmail.com Independent Telecommunications Consultant ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 12:37:06 CET From: shaw Subject: Re: FTP Sites With ITU Standards - Answers Needed on Documents > This begs the question of why -- since the ITU is an agency of the > United Nations, which is funded by the governments of the member > states -- there is *any* restriction on the redistribution of ITU > documents! This stuff should be free to the public. A fair question that comes up often and was somewhat explained by Mark Jefferies' earlier contribution to TELECOM Digest. However, to clarify: that there should be a charge for the standards is a policy set by the ITU's 185 Member governments who also consult with their national commercial and scientific members of the ITU. The ITU is bound by treaty to operate under that collective and consensus policy. If you wish to express your opinion on the policy, it is probably best for you to contact your national representative to the ITU who, probably in this specific case, is the Bureau of International Communications and Information Policy (CIP) at the US Department of State in Washington, D.C. Regards, Robert Shaw ITU [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The ITU has been for over two years a principal supporter and sponsor of this Digest. Their financial assistance along with that of Microsoft has made this journal possible. We all owe them thanks for their contribution. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Re: NYNEX "Time" Number is Wrong Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 01:15:55 -0800 Organization: Best Internet Communications In article , wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com (Wes Leatherock) wrote: > Monty Solomon writes: >> The NYNEX "Time" number (+1 617 637 1234) is reporting the incorrect >> time. It is fast by about 20 seconds. How do the phone companies set >> this time? Is this the same time used by the billing computers? > In most places in Southwestern Bell territory now, the time > service, being sponsored, now is on the premises of the sponsoring > customer and no longer under the direct control of SWBT. > When it was in SWBT offices, the time was represented as being > correct within two minutes. Of course, the Audichron machine had no > connection with the time used for billing. I don't know if this has changed, but when I was growing up in Dallas with Southwestern Bell, the time number (214-844-xxxx, where any xxxx would work) simply led to a recording stating: "Republic Bank time, 2:47, temperature 59" or what have you. It made no attempt at reporting seconds, so there was no way to tell if it was off unless it was at least a good fraction of a minute. When my parents moved to a suburb in GTE country, the same time number led to a different recording, but still didn't give seconds. I was quite pleasantly surprised to discover POP-CORN when I moved to California. Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 96 13:13:45 CST From: Atkinson, Fred Subject: Re: Cellular Rates, NYC and elsewhere In TELECOM Digest V16 #169 Paul Robinson writes: > Think about it: people who get cellular phones are paying for what > is, in effect, a luxury item. Cellular phone service is not something > one "has" to have; one can always use other options. Luxuries are > always much more expensive. Especially in New York. I'll also disagree with you about a cellular phone being a luxury item. If you doubt my justification of the same, then you missed my story entitled 'intimidating cellular phone and a phony police officer' that ran in TELECOM Digest last week. Basically, the guy panicked and ran away from me when I called the police to come identify the matter solely because he saw I was actually calling them. Additionally, I got his tag number to them for investigation. I could have been calling for help to report a personal injury traffic accident or a felony in progress. You tend to see that more often when you're out driving than you do sitting by your telephone at home. No, I DON'T consider my cellular phone a luxury. Neither did the lady whom I called the police to aid her because she was broken down in I-95 earlier today. She was stranded in the median with two kids and needed help. Additionally, I have a handicapped friend who has one in her car. Imagine a handicapped person being broken down far from home and unable to walk the distance to get help. With a cell phone, she can get the assistance she might need and get it fast. It is definitely not a luxury to her, either. Fred ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #201 ******************************