Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA20027; Fri, 10 May 1996 11:22:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 11:22:06 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605101522.LAA20027@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #230 TELECOM Digest Fri, 10 May 96 11:22:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 230 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Fast Dial Omitting Last Four Digits? (Dave Close) Re: Fast Dial Omitting Last Four Digits? (Linc Madison) Re: Fast Dial Omitting Last Four Digits? (Jon Solomon) Wanted NewBridge MainStreet 3624 Boards (Christopher Bernat) Re: Market Share of Various [PBX] Vendors (Tara D. Mahon) Gray Pay Station Company (was Re: An Old Stromberg Stepper) (Dave Levenson) Re: Why is PacBell Trying to Torpedo CallerID? (Bob Bell) Re: AT&T Doesn't Know When to Stop (Wes Leatherock) Re: 1-800 Number Calling Cards: What to Get? (Gary Breuckman) Re: Long Distance From Local Number? (John Cropper) Re: Information Wanted on Finland Telecomms (Kauto Huopio) Re: Local Competition (Celine Anelone) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dhclose@alumnae.caltech.edu (Dave Close) Subject: Re: Fast Dial Omitting Last Four Digits? Date: 10 May 1996 06:30:34 GMT Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Carl Moore writes: > 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.) An alternative proposal, which I've made before but don't recall being published: Allow any call to be dialed with any number of digits from one up to ten. If less than ten, follow with # to mark the end. Treat the number dialed as substituting for the last n digits of the caller's own number. Thus, if my number is 714 434 7359 and I dial 8#, I have implicited dialed 714 434 7358. Similarly, 2111# == 714 434 2111. Obviously, this could be a boon for small businesses with multiple lines, no need for a PBX or Centrex. Drawback: how to deal with those who want 1+ to indicate LD? Solution: eliminate LD, go to flat rate service ala the net itself. Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You say this could be a boon for small businesses with multiple lines, no need for centrex. One thing wrong would be the charge for the 'local' calls between lines within the company. I think centrex is set up so there is no charge for intra-centrex (i.e. extension to extension) calls as it is presently billed. Therefore it might turn out more expensive. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Fast Dial Omitting Last Four Digits? Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 00:25:00 -0700 Organization: Best Internet Communications In article , Carl Moore wrote: > 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.) With speed dial from the phone company (i.e., at the switch level), probably not. With speed dial on your individual telephone set, certainly. With "system speed dial" at the PBX level, maybe, depending on how it was set up. On my memory phone at home, I used to have a speed dial button that was programmed for 1-512-645. Then, instead of dialing 5-3xxx or 5-2xxx like I would if I was actually in the town of Goliad, I would dial *5-xxxx, using memory slot number 5. (Goliad no longer has 5-digit local dialing, because the local calling area has expanded to include not only Berclair and Charco, but also Victoria. Numbers in Goliad still begin with 645 and either a 2, 3, or 8.) Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ From: jsol@MIT.EDU Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 16:11:47 -0400 Subject: Re: Fast Dial Omitting Last Four Digits? Back in the step days, I could do 9-6003 from my normal line (which was 203-739, now 860-739) ... once the ESS machine was turned on, that feature ceased to work... :( ------------------------------ From: Christopher Bernat Subject: Wanted NewBridge MainStreet 3624 Boards Date: 8 May 1996 22:12:47 GMT Organization: National SUPPORT Center Wanted NewBridge MainStreet 3624 Boards. We are looking for LGE boards for NewBridge MainStreet 3624. Please call 803-731-9976 or email me at rjohnson@scsn.net Thanks for any help!! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 May 96 16:41:47 -0400 From: Tara D. Mahon Subject: Re: Market Share of Various [PBX] Vendors beatle@cml.com (Mike Polischuk) wrote: > 1. Who are the top ten telecom companies by sales dollar volume? > 2. Who are the top ten telecom companies by units sold? > A further note: I should clarify that by telecom I mean vendors who > sell key and/or PBX telephone systems. Insight Research's last study of the PBX market ("PBX and Centrex: The Over 100 Lines Market") was released in mid-1993, so I realize these numbers may have changed significantly. But I thought this could at least give you some historical data (on PBXs over 100 lines). PBX Line Base by Vendor (% of Lines): AT&T 32% Nortel 24% ROLM 16% Mitel 5% NEC 8% Fujitsu 2% Hitachi 2% Toshiba 1% InteCom 2% Ericsson 2% Other 6% PBX System Sales: Market Share by Vendor: AT&T 31% Nortel 28% ROLM 17% Mitel 3% NEC 6% Fujitsu 4% Hitachi 2% Toshiba 1% InteCom 2% Ericsson 2% Other 4% Regards, Tara D. Mahon tara@insight-corp.com The Insight Research Corporation www.wcom.com/Insight/insight.html 354 Eisenhower Parkway (201) 605-1400 phone Livingston, NJ 07039-1023 USA (201) 605-1440 fax Comparative Market Research, Competitive Analysis for Telecom Industry ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Gray Pay Station Company (was Re: An Old Stromberg Stepper) Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 21:24:13 GMT John R Levine (johnl@iecc.com) writes: TELECOM Digest Editor noted: >> Remember from history you were taught that one of the early people >> in GTE swore to his dying day that Alex Bell had ripped him off >> of the patent for the telephone in the first place, claiming Bell got >> to the Patent Office a matter of hours or maybe a day before he got >> there. ... > That was Elisha Gray, there's no argument from any side that Bell > filed a few hours before he did and that he did invent a working > telephone about the same time that Bell did ... > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One thing I distinctly remember seeing > as a child was an in-service pay phone -- on Southwestern Bell lines > yet! -- which said on its box that it was manufactured by the Gray > Pay Station Telephone Company, which I guess was one part of Automatic > Electric. The original pay telephone patents were issued to William Gray (as far as I know, no relation to Elisha Gray) in about 1887 or so. He worked for Colt Firearms, but left to start his own company. He tried to interest the telephone company in buying his payphones and offering service to the public, but they were not interested. So, Gray offered them himself. He offered them to merchants, agreeing to pay the phone company for the service, and share the revenues with the merchant. That's right, in 1887 the first payphones were COCOTs! His designs improved until about 1911 when he introduced a model with a three-slot top-mounted coin-acceptor, an escrow relay, and (as was the style for non-coin sets of that era) a separate receiver and a boom-mounted transmitter. That design changed slightly as a rotary dial was added in the 1920's, and a single-piece handset was substituted for the two-piece audio parts in the late 1940's. The basic shape didn't change until the late 1960's when the single-slot design we see today was introduced. Western Electric and Automatic Electric each bought his phones, and later, licensed his patents to build their own. Before that, however, most of the payphones in the country, though installed and operated by the telephone companies, were manufactured by the Gray Pay Station Company. In 1984, as part of the divestiture of the Bell System, most states began to allow payphones to be treated as de-regulated customer premises equipment. This gave rise, once again, to customer-owned payphones. One of the dominant manufacturers of COCOT payphone instruments today is Elcotel, Inc., of Sarasota, Florida. They supply independent payphone operators, and they also license their product to AT&T (or would it now be Lucent Technologies?) The chief executive officer of Elcotel is one Tracey L. Gray, probably no relation to either William or Elisha! Payphone history is, perhaps, a `Gray' area, no? Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Bravo!: Dave, I don't know what we would do without your regular input here. Your regular contributions are part of what has made the Digest so wonderful over the nearly fifteen years it has been published. That's right! Fifteen years in August. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bbell@incite.com (Bob Bell) Subject: Re: Why is PacBell Trying to Torpedo CallerID? Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 10:53:36 GMT Organization: Intecom On Thu, 25 Apr 1996 18:33:07 GMT, hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) wrote: > In article , jpk@ns.incog.com (Jon > Krueger) wrote: >> If this is the case, the mystery is why? What difference does it make >> to PacBell? It's just another add-on for a fee. If anything, you'd >> think they'd want to sell it, since they don't charge for blocking, >> but do charge for CallerID. So why are they trying to torpedo it? >> I'm sorry, but I don't think PacBell has become a privacy crusader all >> of a sudden. What's really going on here? > Perhaps PacBell is just as tired of government/regulatory mandates as > everyone else. Perhaps PacBell agrees that 'complete blocking' should > have been the default, and that anyone wanting to change could then > change at their option, instead of being railroaded. > The major problem with caller ID, IMHO, is that the benefits for the > consumer are extremely slight, while the advantages for telemarketers > and other time-wasters are very great. > If only some small fraction of this effort could be redirected towards > something useful -- e.g., ISDN or HDSL for each of our subscriber lines. I am afraid I must take issue with you on one of your points. You stated that "The major problem with caller ID, IMHO, is that the benefits for the consumer are extremely slight, while the advantages for the telemarketers and other time-wasters are very great". I have found that 1) the telemarketers already have all of the phone numbers that they need sorted by buying preferences, location, and any number of other criteria which they could desire, and 2) that caller ID is the only way I have of judging whether to open my "door" to these "Time-wasters" before accepting the call. There is a device by the way which seems to be effective at discourging the telemarketers. Federal Law can be invoked which can result in a significant fine payable to the offended party for pursuing a cold-call after being warned that the user has no desire to be disturbed. There was a device in several of the electronic mail-order catalogs I receive which performs this function automatically. Please realize that I am not questioning your right to your opinion. I am simply stating my own. Sincerely, Robert T. Bell [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Bear in mind however you still have to receive that first call before you can tell them not to call in the future, and the results obtained when you tell them that are dubious at best. It is quite time-consuming to enforce your rights. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com (Wes Leatherock) Subject: Re: AT&T Doesn't Know When to Stop Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 13:39:00 GMT Mike Fox wrote: > . . . . I examined it very carefully before deciding to toss it. > BTW, the check also required that I call them from the line in > question to get an authorization code that had to be written in a box > on the front that says "void if incorrect code here" -- though how the > bank could verify that I have no idea. I bet it would sail through my > bank and bounce at their bank, which is probably a captive institution > like AT&T Universal Bank and therefore trained to verify the codes. More likely it was a draft rather than a check. Most big companies of any sort use drafts now. The bank does not pay the draft itself; the bank presents it to the drawer, who then pays the bank. I remember even 20 or 30 years ago seeing the messenger from the bank come into the cashier's office at Southwestern Bell Telephone's headquarters in Oklahoma City and hand the drafts, with an adding machine tape, to the assistant treasurer for Oklahoma. She would give the messenger a draft (drawn on the treasurer in St. Louis) for the drafts. When that draft (and others from other states) were presented to the treasurer in St. Louis, the treasurer would give the bank in St. Louis a _check_. Only the treasurer in St. Louis (headquarters of the company) was authorized to write checks, as opposed to drafts. Only the treasurer could actually pay out the company's money. The draft can often be recognized by the wording "payable through" name of bank ... not "payable at," or "drawn on," or a lack of any such wording at all. Such a draft can be returned to the bank and charged back if it's found to be irregular or otherwise fails to satisfy the company which issued it. Insurance companies, especially, use these a lot because they want to examine the endorsements carefully to make sure all the release wording is satisfied on claims; insurance companies generally don't even pay the bank until they've examined the checks, which may cause several days delay in the bank's getting their money. This has to be covered, of course, by contracts between the bank and the company, but actually it's a fairly common arrangement for various reasons. Wes Leatherock wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com wes.leatherock@baremetl.com ------------------------------ From: puma@netcom.com (Gary Breuckman) Subject: Re: 1-800 Number Calling Cards: What to Get? Organization: organized?? me? Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 14:23:23 GMT In article , wrote: > This summer, I will be attending a three week academic program on a > college campus. The organization that is in charge of the program > suggests that students of the program (IAAY) should bring a 1-800 > number calling card. This confuses me. THe college is in NYNEX > territory, and I live in this area. What exactly is this type of > card, and what should I get? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think all he means is bring a phone > credit card of your choice which you can use with your preferred > carrier by dialing into the carrier's 800 number. Most likely the > phone service at the college restricts long distance calls from > their phones and they probably also block out 10xxx codes. This will > provide you a way to make calls from the college phone system if you > wish to do so. PAT] You might also consider a prepaid calling card, available from many sources now, even Target, etc. Most of the ones I've seen recently have been around $.20/minute. I suspect that's what they were talking about, although the carrier's calling card would be fine too. One advantage of the prepaid card would be limited liability if you would lose it, limited to whatever value remained on the card. puma@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Re: Long Distance From Local Number? Date: 9 May 1996 22:56:22 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA On May 09, 1996 04.58.13 in article , 'tdu@enter.net (Tim Updegrove)' wrote: > I loaded a GNN (Global Network Navigator) internet access disk that I > got in the mail which advertised one free month of service. I > cancelled the account at the end of one month but when I got the phone > bill in the mail, I nearly died. There were four phone calls via > Sprint to (717) 341-5611 in Scranton, Pa. (I live near Reading, Pa.) > totaling over 225 minutes (first call=42 minutes.; second=2; third=33; > fourth=156 minutes) and costing nearly $55.00. I feel like I was "ripped > off" because the service was supposedly free and I never dialed that > number. > I've used GNN nearly every day for that month but only these four calls > are on my bill. To access GNN, I've always used a local Reading > number (610-655-8859) so how did this long distance number get dialed? > I suspect this charge is related to the alternate number which I > manually selected a few times. However, I selected a local number > (610-375-6945) as the alternate (it was a 14.4 line instead of 28.8). The 610 number sounds like a POTS that rings down to their Scranton number. If you had the speaker on, and knew the touch tones (or pulses, as the case may be), you could've listened to verify that it was indeed dialing the 610 number, or just reporting it to you. Check your internet provider's contract first, making sure that there is no language specifying call redirection from a local number. Then, contact your carrier, and explain the situation. Also contact the PA office of the Better Business Bureau and file a complaint against the internet provider. > Here is the real question for you telecom gurus, is it possible for a > local number to be "patched" to a long distance number (i.e. can a > person think he is calling a local exchange but end up paying for a > long distance phone call)? If yes, then this practice is extremely > misleading. ... and illegal. The common practice is for the *company* to pay the difference for the ringdown, not the consumer. Therefore, even if they say that the consumer may be liable for any phone charges, they can't do what they allegedly did to you ... > I understand GNN is not responsible because of the "I accept" clause > in the license agreement. Should I complain to Sprint that I never > dialed this number? Do I have a legal out? (The $55.00 doesn't > bother me as much as the principle involved -- I didn't dial that > number and the software didn't dial that number). > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Phones can certainly be forwarded to > wherever the owner wishes to have them go, however the cost of forwarding > is the responsibility of the person who does it, not the responsibility > of the people dialing in. As an experiment, you might like to dial your > 'alternate' number again for just one minute or so, and carefully note > the time and date you did it. Then, watch for the next bill and see if > this same thing occurs again with the long distance number being listed. > I would say it might be worth looking into with the local telco, but > don't get into a long conversation with the rep and cause confusion. > Just say you did not call those numbers and ask for some explanation. > Tell the rep at the times in question you *did* call the other number > and are wondering what is going on. Report results here please. PAT] Most definately ... you might also MANUALLY dial it, then do the same with the software and see if they sound identical. John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ From: Kauto.Huopio@lut.fi (Kauto Huopio) Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Finland Telecomms Date: 10 May 1996 12:44:43 +0300 Organization: Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland I might add that Finland is one of the most competitive telecomms enviroments in the whole Europe. We have three LD providers (Telecom Finland, Kaukoverkko Ysi (Long Distance Network Nine) (owned by the ATC Finland group, nowdays called Finnet Group), and Telivo, a telecomms arm of the national power grid operator IVO. In international activities, there are also three major players, Telecom Finland, Finnet International and Telivo, and several small service providers who buy wholesale international LD capacity and resell it. There are two GSM operators, Telecom Finland and Radiolinja (owned mainly by the Finnet Group). For low usage users, it is cheaper nowdays to own a cellular phone than to have a normal copper line! A call to Sweden is nowdays cheaper than a normal daytime in-country LD call used to cost five or six years ago. Kauto Huopio (Kauto.Huopio@lut.fi) Mail: Kauto Huopio, Laserkatu 3 CD 363, FIN-53850 Lappeenranta, Finland ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 96 10:11:00 EDT From: Celine Anelone <0002027431@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Local Competition I'd like to add my two cents to this debate. > So when a customer has trouble, their serving company will be able > to say "Hey, all our stuff checks out -- the problem is with the cable > which is the Bell Company's responsibility." The Bell Company will > then say "Not us, you aren't getting dial tone from your service > provider." The customer will not know who to go to and will get > caught in an endless run around. I don't agree that this will happen with quality companies. Being customer focused means that when a customer calls in for a trouble, the company will do its very best to ensure that the customer problems are resolved in a timely fashion. The companies who will play the "pointing finger: game won't last for long. What I anticipate will happen is this: A customer will call in trouble to company X. Company X will identify the problem and will find that the cause of the trouble is Company B. I believe that company X will go to B and ask them to fix the problem. The calling customer won't be aware of what's going on. You will see a lot of threats of lawsuits and even a lot of lawsuits. Company X to get company B moving will yell, scream, threaten and will ensure that the problem is fixed in a timely manner. So relax, don't worry, I anticipate that we'll see quality service with competition. I know for sure that the company I currently work for will be 100% customer focused. Celine Anelone [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Of course if your company were to completely sever its connections with Bell and become totally self- reliant by stringing its own wire and building its own phone exchanges and such, then there would really be true competition wouldn't there? Essentially all the local 'competition' is going to be doing is just reselling the local Bell. What sort of competition is that? But if the newcomers had to invest the money, time and effort the Bells have put into things over the past century, it is doubtful they would ever get in business. Let that be a lesson to any of you who think you have something the world needs and wants. If you do, and are at all successful over a century or so, expect the government to come in and rip you off when late-comers are sore because they did not think of it first. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #230 ******************************