Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id OAA29427; Thu, 9 May 1996 14:26:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 14:26:03 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605091826.OAA29427@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #227 TELECOM Digest Thu, 9 May 96 14:26:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 227 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: 10-Digit Dialing is Easy (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: No More 10-ATT-0 (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: No More 10-ATT-0 (Dave Levenson) Re: No More 10-ATT-0 (Zev Rubenstein) Re: MCI True Lies (John Cropper) Re: MCI True Lies (Bill Kindel) Re: Wireless Phone Jack System (Jim Cantrell) Re: Wireless Phone Jack System (Sean Kelly) Asia-Pacific Paging Companies (Ian Geldard) Help Needed With US Cellular Service (Greg Eaton) Fast Dial Omitting Last Four Digits? (Carl Moore) Last Laugh! When the Newbies Get on Line (TELECOM Digest Editor) 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, 08 May 1996 16:25:14 -0700 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: 10-Digit Dialing is Easy Thomas Lapp wrote: > I've been following the postings about how 10-digit dialing will soon > become common in overlay areas with some amusement. I've been living > in the Delmarva Valley for several years now, and there are five area > codes within 25 miles of the northern county of Delaware. Around here > is it very common to give area code with phone number, since your > co-worker could be in MD (410), PA (610, or 215), DE (302) or NJ > (609). I think that last year Delaware went to mandatory ten-digit > dialing for all in-state long-distance calls as well, so it will make > it easier if I dial ten digits all the time rather than trying to > figure out if I need seven- or ten-digits to reach a party. > Of course, when everything is ten digits, it will make it more > difficult to know if I'm inter-LATA or intra-LATA or local dialing > area. Well, intra vs. inter LATA has always been confusing in many areas if you are only looking at the area code. There are LATA's which contain all or part of one or more area codes. Likewise, there are area codes which contain all or part of one or more LATA. As for Local vs. Toll, this is where the regulatory agencies (FCC/CRTC and state/provincial) and consumer groups should get togather an NANP-wide standard: IMO, there *SHOULD ALWAYS* be a *MANDATORY* '1+' required before *ANY* toll call. All toll calls would be dialed as ten-digits, regardless of whether it is in the Home NPA or in a distant NPA, and regardless of "local" dialing procedures. Local calls would be dialable as ten-digits *anywhere and everywhere*-- it would be required in dense metro areas while *strongly* recommended everywhere else. Less dense areas would still be able to "get by" with seven-digits, although telco's printed directories and directory assistance quoting should always be in the full ten-digit format. Rural areas *should* still be allowed to use full ten=digits, permissive seven-digits, and even four or five digits, as long as the local dialing area is not really complex. If a rural area can dial only its own NPA-NXX code as a local (non-toll) call, or if there are two or three NXX codes for the small town or rural region (as long as all c/o codes share the same first two digits NX, then *any* type of switch *should* be able to handle a short length local dialing procedure. Also, *any* local call *should* be dialable even as 1+ten-digits and should not be charged any tolls. The "1+" would be *required* on all toll calls (ten-digits) but shouldn't be prohibited even on ten-digit local calls. This would *SIMPLIFY* routing and translation tables in the switching and routing network as well as the billing and rating network *everywhere* in the NANP. It would also eliminate the need for conflicting dialing instructions throughout the NANP as well as reduce the number of different intercept, vacant code and partial dial recordings. All of this, *including* overlay area codes would make everything including code assignments *much* easier! But maybe I'm only dreaming ... try to get the regulatory agencies, consumer groups and the *multiple* number of telcos to all agree on any kind of a standard! 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 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 09:24:57 -0700 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: No More 10-ATT-0 Use of 10-XXX/101-XXXX+ codes will vary from place-to-place. Some states have authorized inTRA-LATA competition, but not (yet) chosing a primary (default) carrier. The traditional Bell and independent LEC's will still be the default carrier if a fg.D (10-XXX/101-XXXX+) code isn't used. Minnesota (and other states) have actually gone as far as authorizing balloting customers to choose a primary default inTRA-LATA carrier. US West as the toll inTRA-LATA carrier has been assigned 101-5123+ as their code if you wish to use them for a toll inTRA-LATA call, but you have chosen AT&T, Sprint, MCI, etc. as your primary inTRA-LATA toll carrier. There might even be a few states where the LEC's don't even allow the use of 10-XXX/101-XXXX codes for inTRA-LATA toll calls! In those cases, you need to have an account with a carrier and use their 1-800 number or 950-XXXX number, along with an account/authorization code or card number. These calls will usually be billed at a calling card or travel rate. You still have a 0+ "type" of access and billing, but not any 1+ "type" of billing. In the early 1980's, you could use a seven-digit POTS (hopefully local) number to access MCI, Sprint, etc. known as fg.A line-side interface (as opposed to superior trunk-side interface). If you were at a payphone, you'd have to deposit coins to call this (hopefully) local number to access the "OCC" (Other Common Carrier). If the payphone were timed, you'd have to deposit more money at a later interval. If you were calling from just outside of a local dialing area or had measured/message rate, you'd be charged by the LEC just to call up the LD company's access number! But the LD companies usually didn't have "travel" or "card" surcharges on most calls placed through their fg.A numbers. Here in Louisiana, we've had the use of 10-XXX/101-XXXX+ codes for inTRA-LATA toll for about five or six years now. But to use the access codes for *local* do *NOT* consistantly work here. Even tho' you will be paying *more* to use a LD carrier for a *local* call, BellSouth usually *BLOCKS* use of 10-XXX/101-XXXX+ for local calls. If you still choose to use a fg.D code for local (and it isn't blocked), you have *TWO* types of dialing procedures: If it is a "0+ type" call, you dial 10-XXX/101-XXXX+0+ten-digits. If it is a "1+ type" call, you dial 10-XXX/101-XXXX+seven-digits. If the line is subscribed to LOS (Local Optional Service), something like EAS, you dial those areas on a seven-digit basis. I don't think that any LOS plans in Louisiana cover an entire LATA, but it does cover an area wider than the traditional local area, extending into traditional inTRA-LATA toll, at greatly discounted rates- some NPA-NXX's in your LOS can even include a maximum monthly cap, thus making it part of a "monthly flat rate" local dialing area! If that line has LOS, "1+" type calls are placed with a fg.D code as: 10-XXX/101-XXXX+seven-digits. In *any* case, all "0+" type calls (when not blocked) are dialed as: (10-XXX/101-XXXX)+0+ten-digits. InTRA-LATA 1+ toll calls (excluding any LOS plans) are dialed as: (10-XXX/101-XXXX)+1+ten-digits. The above is how it is here in Louisiana, from "POTS" type lines, including BellSouth payphones (except that so far, only BellSouth and AT&T handle 1+ coin-sent-paid from telco payphones). It doesn't necessarily apply to calls originating from Cellular, PBX, private-payphones, etc. Of course, all of this will be evolving further, as we have *THREE* forces here: - Changes in the Numbering Plan and Dialing Procedures happening throughout the NANP - Introduction of competition within LATA's, and even local services. - Feuding and friction between carriers as to how/if they will continue to accept/validate/bill each others' customers' calling-cards (read AT&T vs. NYNEX and maybe other LEC's). Interesting times ahead! 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: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: No More 10-ATT-0 Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 00:56:04 GMT zev (zev@wireless.attmail.com) writes: > Correction: you can still use your AT&T calling card: just dial 102880 > (1-0- ATT-0) first, or dial 1-800-CALL-ATT first. AT&T will handle > local calls, as will any other IXC these days. Like so many other things in this business, your statement is true in some places; not true on others. In New Jersey, AT&T is not permitted by Bell Atlantic to handle _local_ calls by using 10288. IntraLATA toll calls are okay, but not _local_ calls. You can place local calls with AT&T but only by using 1-800-CALL-ATT. You also pay approximately 25% more than you would if you simply dialed 0+ and used Bell Atlantic. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 [The Man in the Mooney] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 11:01:38 -0500 From: zev@wireless.attmail.com (zev) Subject: Subject: Re: No More 10-ATT-0 Dave Yewell (and similarly Ron/Sir Topham Hatt) >> Correction: you can still use your AT&T calling card: just dial 102880 >> (1-0- ATT-0) first, or dial 1-800-CALL-ATT first. AT&T will handle >> local calls, as will any other IXC these days. > Zev, could be that way in your part of the world, but I was in > Monterey CA yesterday, and could not use 102880 to call within the > area code. The LD provider on the pay phone was not ATT, so I thought > I could get ATT access with 102880 - no luck, just "sorry your call > cannot be completed as dialed". Try dialing with a 10-digit number. Here in Oakland, if I dial 102880 and follow that with a 7-digit number, I get reorder after 3 digits (when the CO can tell it's not an NPA), but if I dial 10 digits (starting with my area code of 510) I get the AT&T bong tone and branding. Also, despite AT&T's efforts, there are still payphones where 10288 is blocked, in violation of the law. There are also payphones that say they use AT&T as the LD carrier which have been switched, but which do not indicate so on the phone. And, in fact, there may be situations where even 10-digit dialing after 102880 doesn't work (of this I'm not sure). For these reasons, AT&T has been pushing the 800 access to their network. Zev Rubenstein zev@attmail.com Independent Telecommunications Consultant ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Re: MCI True Lies Date: 8 May 1996 20:03:57 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA On May 07, 1996 20.52.00 in article , 'Quinn, Michael ' wrote: > An MCI rep called me Saturday April 27 about 1PM with a deal which > sounded pretty good, and guaranteed rates below Sprint, to which I had > shifted a few months back and was happy ($.10 min interstate nights/ > weekends, and .22 peak). The package included: > - $.08/min nights/weekends, .15/min peak. She specifically cited > these rates, said they would be effective for at least six months and > asked me if they were lower than Sprint's (and we also chatted about > inTER vs inTRA LATA rates, so I know there was no confusion on either > of our parts). > - 35% discount for the first six months; > - "free" 800 number with the first 100 minutes free; > - some other minor inducements, like calling cards and covering the > cost of shifting PICs, etc. > So I shifted; even if it sounded too good to be true; which, as it > seems, it was. > When I received the intro package today, most of the info therein was > consistent with the phone solicitation, but the rates noted above were > not posted as they were in the Sprint intro packet, so I called > customer service around 6:30 PM Eastern time for clarification. I > talked to two different service reps, both of whom told me my rates > were time, distance, and volume sensitive, and neither of whom had > heard of any "$.08/min program" as described above. There was no > supervisor in the entire MCI system -- he was "on vacation this week". > And the "100 free minutes" is only good for the next month and a half, > etc. Always, ALWAYS get it in writing BEFORE agreeing to anything. Verbal "contracts" seem to have little value to the phone solicitors ... > I'm shifting my LD service back to Sprint tomorrow morning. If a > supervisor ever shows up at MCI, s/he is welcome to call or email me > with his/er side of the story. Uh huh ... do you REALLY think they care? :-) John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ From: kindel@ghoti.osf.org (Bill Kindel) Subject: Re: MCI True Lies Date: 08 May 1996 20:53:41 GMT Organization: Open Software Foundation > An MCI rep called me Saturday April 27 about 1PM with a deal which > sounded pretty good, and guaranteed rates below Sprint, to which I had > shifted a few months back and was happy ($.10 min interstate nights/ > weekends, and .22 peak). The package included: > - $.08/min nights/weekends, .15/min peak. She specifically cited > these rates, said they would be effective for at least six months and > asked me if they were lower than Sprint's (and we also chatted about > inTER vs inTRA LATA rates, so I know there was no confusion on either > of our parts). > - 35% discount for the first six months; > - "free" 800 number with the first 100 minutes free; > - some other minor inducements, like calling cards and covering the > cost of shifting PICs, etc. I live outside Boston and am also a Sprint Sense user (with an extra 5% discount as part of the USAA buyering plan). I received the same offer sometime in March. Though we skipped the intra/inter-LATA discussion, I *did* have the presence of mind to ask for the offer in writing. I'm STILL waiting, if that says anything ... Since nearly all my calling is evenings and weekends, Sprint Sense works for me. (I'll spare you the discussion with some other bozo who couldn't grasp that I pay 9.5 cents per minute -- "how do you pay HALF a cent?" 8^) Bill Kindel THE OPEN GROUP Research Institute (617) 621-7395 x/Open OSF 11 Cambridge Center http://www.osf.org/~kindel Cambridge, MA 02142 PGP Public Key: mail -s "get kindel" pgp-public-keys@pgp.mit.edu PGP Fingerprint: C3 D5 D8 F3 8F F8 2C 25 D1 AE 60 A1 70 8A 33 CC ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 14:46:53 -0700 From: Jim Cantrell Subject: Re: Wireless Phone Jack System Dawne Reske wrote: > I'm looking for input on how the wireless phone jack systems that are > on the market really work. I purchased an RCA RC926 Wireless Phone > Jack system at a local retailer here in town. It appears that the best The first incarnation of this I saw was as an intercom, plug a couple of the I/C units into the wall and you were in business, modulated voice riding A/C. > the units themselves require electricity and that's why they don't > work when the power is out? My guess is that they require electricity. Plug an an O'scope in to your wall outlet and take a look, should be able to tell a lot from the appearance of your house power. ------------------------------ From: skelly@interramp.com (Sean Kelly) Subject: Re: Wireless Phone Jack System Date: Thu, 09 May 96 13:38:02 GMT Organization: Internet Online Services In article , dawn reske wrote: > I'm looking for input on how the wireless phone jack systems that are > on the market really work. I've read a bit about this, and although I don't remember the details you're correct in presuming that the signal is modulated over the AC current somehow. Tests have been done to show that fairly high-bandwith networking can be done over AC lines, although you need signal boosters if you're going to go outside of the building and down to another location. Some of the home control utits (like the X10 stuff) and some brands of remote speakers use AC wiring as well. It's very reliable, although it relies on having power in the lines. One consideration is that if you're doing it in a commercial (non-home) environment, you should realize that someone else can plug a unit into the wall also and be on the same phone line (unless you can set different 'channels'). Sean ------------------------------ From: Ian Geldard Subject: Asia-Pacific Paging Companies Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 14:08:08 GMT I am the researcher for the Asia-Pacific Telecommunity's Yearbook. The 1997 edition is currently being compiled and I would be particularly interested to hear from anyone who could supply me with the names, addresses, fax and phone numbers for paging service providers in the Asia-Pacific region. Please let me know if you think you could help. In return I'd be happy to send you -- free of charge -- a copy of the 600+ page 1996 yearbook which contains extensive information on telecommunications developments in the Asia-Pacific (it does not include the west coast of the Americas e.g. USA, Chile etc). For those who do not know of the APT, it is based in Thailand and was established in 1979 to serve as a regional organisation under the auspices of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) to promote telecommunications in the region. TTFN, Ian Geldard, Researcher Icom Publications Ltd, Chancery House, St Nicholas Way, Sutton, Surrey SM1 1JB, UK Tel: +44 181 642 1117 Fax: +44 181 642 1941 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 14:52:16 +0100 From: Greg Eaton Subject: Help Needed With US Cellular Service I have a client (a major UK financial organisation) who is looking to both buy and rent a number of cellphones for executives who travel regularly to the USA. They have hired from a number of US companies, before but generally have been unhappy with the service received. The hire phones will mainly be used in the NY / LA areas. They are also looking to purchase three handsets, to be on air permanently, i.e they will pay any monthly airtime charge, connection fee etc. These phones will need international dialling facilities, without using calling cards or similar services. Ideally should work in all of the following ares: New York, Washington DC, Maryland, Philadelphia, Madison, California, Minneapolis, Chicago, Florida and Colorado. Will there be any problems with getting connected in the US, if the subscriber is a UK company -- its generally a real headache trying to do the reverse in the UK. Any advice / assistance gratefully appreciated by direct email to Greg@sail.demon.co.uk and I'll summarise any responses for the Digest readers. Thanks Greg Eaton ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 May 96 13:45:05 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Fast Dial Omitting Last Four Digits? Is there any such thing as being able to speed-dial everything through but not beyond the phone prefix? I heard of someone having done that because of so many calls to the installation where I am located. (i.e., through 410-278, and then must add the last four digits.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 14:07:52 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Last Laugh! When the Newbies Get On Line Quite a few of the newer people on the net these days are pretty sharp. They are easy to work with and make valuable contributions to the overall net community ... but my, oh my ... now and then some come along who are *so damn dumb and arrogant* they really take the cake. Consider one incident here Thursday morning. On Wednesday evening a 'user' called techrecruiter@hq.hq.sequel.net writes to me via the old and obsolete eecs.nwu.edu address saying 'please add me to Digest mailing list'. Now this is one of those places which is forever sending out great gobs of commercial messages looking to recruit employees for various clients. I get them daily, but I would not say I get as many as I do of Kevin Lipsitz' mailings or the 'Make Money Fast'. I do get quite a few. It would never occur to them to pay for their advertising like they have to do in the printed media, etc. Anyway, 'techrecruiter' wants to be added to the Digest mailing list and the autoresponder sends out a few files to get him/her started. This morning I sit down at the terminal and the inbox is *jammed* with mail from 'ellen@hq.hq.sequel.net' and 'tamara@hq.hq.sequel.net' saying to delete the name from the mailing list. Not once, but dozens and dozens of times. I no sooner flush the toil -- umm, I mean inbox and it immediatly fills again with a couple dozen more from these two dingbats. I write them and suggest one message is enough; that if they allow some time for mail in transit to reach them that will be the end of it. Each time they would write, of course the autoresponder would kick in with an answer back and that would get these two newbies in an uproar and writing to me again. Very indignantly they write back to say something other than 'delete this name' telling me now I know how it feels to get 'inudated' with 'unsolicited and unwanted' email. ... gosh, I never knew what that was like before. I only get a few hundred pieces of mail each day including a few from commercial employment recruiting services so I would not know what they are talking about. ... I wrote them back and included a copy of the dumb little one line note sent by 'techrecruiter' which got things rolling and told them after they meditate on that for a few minutes or a few hours or however long it takes them to grasp simple concepts they might be able to understand what was going on. And this, from an outfit that if I am not mistaken has flooded the Usenet groups at one time or another with their recruiting notices. I really have to wonder why, if Congress is so eager to pass laws regulating this thing, they can't pass a few which require new users to meet some minimum intelligence level before being granted email privileges. Maybe some kind of an IQ test or something. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #227 ******************************