Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA01829; Tue, 14 May 1996 11:53:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 11:53:52 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605141553.LAA01829@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #236 TELECOM Digest Tue, 14 May 96 11:52:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 236 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Sprint Eliminates Calling Card Surcharges (Van Heffner) Some Statistics on the Cost of Phone Fraud (Van Heffner) 800/888; 10-XXX/101-XXXX and COCOTS (Mark J. Cuccia) Macintosh Extensions Guide (Kelly Breit) What is "Feature Group A"? (Jason Fetterolf) Does Dialing LD Access Code Prevent IntraLATA *69 Function? (J. Fetterolf) Employment Opportunity: Engineers Needed - Telecom Start-up (Jim Oakley) Average Calls per Cellular Subscriber? (R. Schechtman) NZer Travelling to America: Cellphone Connected Wanted (Andrew Knox) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 00:32:41 -0700 From: VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS Organization: VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS 1-707-444-6686 Subject: Sprint Eliminates Calling Card Surcharges Kansas City, MO, May 13, 1996 (DLD DIGEST) -- In a surprising move today, Sprint announced that it is eliminating all surcharges on it's domestic calling card calls. Like AT&T and MCI, Sprint has normally imposed an $.80 surcharge to it's customers on each of their calling card calls. As of today, the company will be begin re-issuing their Sprint FoNCARDs, and dropping the domestic surcharge alltogether. In addition, the company will be marketing the card at a new "flat rate" of $.25 per minute, anywhere in the U.S., anytime of day. Previously, the company had charged a variety of per-minute rates that varied according to mileage and time-of-day. The elimination of the surcharge, coupled with a flat rate which is less (in most cases) than previous rates, could save Sprint customers as much as 80% off the price of a call, as compared to the old rate structure. "Sprint Sense FONCARD is the first in the 57-year history of major telephone calling cards to offer a flat rate and no surcharge," said Brian Adamik, vice president, consumer communications at the Yankee Group of Boston, a leading telecommunications research firm. "Typical long distance calling cards charge consumers 80 cents per call. In fact, last year alone," Adamik said, "Americans spent approximately $1 billion on calling card surcharges." Sprint will still impose per-call surcharges upon customers making international calls. Though the offer does not beat that of smaller rival companies, which have offered no-surcharge calling cards at lower rates for sometime, the move could prompt AT&T and MCI to eventually eliminate their surcharges as well. Seems strange that Sprint's prepaid SPREE calling card actually costs MORE than their new standard calling card rate. It remains to be seen what the ramifications will be upon other cards though. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 00:32:41 -0700 From: VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS Organization: VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS 1-707-444-6686 Subject: Some Statistics on the Cost of Phone Fraud Telecommunications fraud is expected to reach $3.375 billion in 1995 -- an increase of $70 million over the previous year. A survey of over 90 businesses who were victims of toll fraud found that losses ranged from a few thousand dollars to $4 million. The "average" loss for all reported business cases is estimated at $168,000. The amount of long distance charges stolen through customer premise equipment in the U.S. is around $1.3 billion. Average losses caused by customer premise equipment (CPE) toll fraud have dropped to about $20,000 per incident. The average loss per incident was $24,000 in 1994. The cost to users in "800" line charges -- run up by thieves and attempted thieves -- is estimated to reach a minimum of $235 million in 1995. "Hackers" unsuccessful, random calls constitute about 1% of the 2 billion annual calls to "800" numbers. Total Annual Direct Cost of CPE (Customer Premise Equipment) Fraud: $1.625 Billion TELECOM INDUSTRY TOLL FRAUD LOSSES (1995 estimates) -- Cellular toll fraud: $450 million -- Calling card toll fraud: $450 million -- Pay phone toll fraud: $90 million -- Subscription fraud: $450 million -- Call forwarding fraud: $70 million -- Hits to Carrier Switches & Networks $190 million -- Prisoner toll fraud: $100 million Total Annual Direct Cost of Industry Toll Fraud: $1.75 billion Source: Telecom & Network Security Review ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 10:34:35 -0700 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: 800/888; 10-XXX/101-XXXX and COCOTS I've never used a COCOT which I didn't HATE! Recently there was a question in TELECOM Digest about their local telco (I think it was Sprint-Centel or Sprint-United in Florida) charging them on their bill for calling 800-555-1212. There is *not* supposed to be a charge to call *any* 800 number (that's to actually dial and complete a connection to the 800 number). As for PAY-PAY-PAY-per-calls using an 800 number, I think that the FCC is really cracking down on the fraud of the number-holders and billing agencies in those cases. We haven't really heard much about problems with them recently, have we? I'm not saying it doesn't still happen, but the problems seem to have dwindled. Well, for years, I've noticed COCOTS that have their synthesized voice demand money to call 800-555-xxxx numbers. It seems that the rating program defaults *any* or *every* NPA+555 to charge something (it could range between $0.50 to $1.00 or even more), including the toll-free NPA, 800. This can cause problems in calling 800-555-1212, Canada-Direct at 800-555-1111, AT&T/Lucent at 800-555-8111 and other long-standing "special" 800 numbers using 555. While I have found at least two major owner/vendors of private-payphones in the New Orleans area have no problem accepting 1-888- and 1-800- including 1-800-555- as toll-free and untimed (although you do run into the problem where they turn their keypad off and disconnect the microphone when you try to use a pocket tone dialer), I still run across many COCOTS improperly trying to charge for 1-800-555-. For those which don't handle 1-888- properly, there are oh so many variations ... "Please do not dial a '1' before this local number" as there is a (504)-888 exchange here in New Orleans ... "Invalid Number" or "SORRY! you may NOT dial 1888nxxxxxx from this pay- phone" ... "DEPOSIT TWO DOLLARS and SEVENTY FIVE CENTS for ONE MINUTE" after dialing 1-888-NXX-X (thinking it is 1 + seven-digits) ... and the like. As you can see, I've never used a COCOT that I haven't HATED! Some other "recordings" are: "DO NOT DIAL the area code when calling this long distance number" when I've dialed 0-504-seven-digits for Home NPA "0+" or 1-504-seven- digits for Home NPA toll. Of course, I'm not really going to put coins into a COCOT for any toll call, nor use "traditional" 0+ dialing from a COCOT. I do use 800-CALL-ATT and 800-3210-ATT, and even (when not blocked) 10-288/101-0288+0+ten-digits. Even doing the latter, I've gotten COCOT recordings telling me not to dial the area code if it is a Home NPA AT&T 0+ call. If I did 10-288/101-0288+ 0+seven-digits Home NPA toll, the Bell dialtone c/o switch would either time out as a partial dial or cut to vacant code, as it expects a full ten digit string on this type of 0+ call. I really have no control over the pre-programmed touchtone-outpulsing of this damned COCOT. As for Toll-Free 800-555- and 888-, you can't always even reach the LEC (BellSouth in my case) Operator on a single "0". The phones frequently outpulse a 950-xxxx or 1-800- number of *THEIR* long-distance operator account. Many of the AOSlime "operators" either refuse to give you "back" to the LEC/Bell operator, although maybe the really just don't have the capability to do so. (BellSouth doesn't have an 800- or 950-xxxx number nor 10-XXX/101-XXXX code to reach its Operators, or if it does, I'm not aware of any that work from here). And if you do get an AT&T operator (via 10-288-0/0#/00 or its 800-CALL-ATT or 800-3210-ATT access), AT&T operators can only assist in connecting *AT&T* handled 800 numbers, as the OSPS system doesn't seem to check the *LEC* 800/888 number database to then hand the call to the proper carrier. LEC Operators have access to the 800/888 database which shows *which* carrier to hand the call off to. "Canada Direct" at 800-555-1111 doesn't seem to use AT&T (it probably uses MCI, as Stentor now has a business relationship with MCI). However an LEC operator can dial that 800 number for you. So I guess you're out-of-luck if the COCOT wants $1.00 to call 800-555-1111, you try to get the LEC (Bell) Operator on "0" to dial it for you, but instead of getting the LEC (Bell) Operator, you get some AOSlime on "0" who either refuses or just doesn't have the proper interface to either dial the 800-555-1111 number or "give you back" to your LEC/Bell Operator. As to AOSlime "giving you back" to the (proper) LEC/Bell Operator, many COCOTS and their associated AOS use a specific tone. When it all works the way it is supposed to, upon requesting/demanding the AOSlime to "give you Bell", she (or a recording) instructs you to "hold the handset away from your ear momentarily as there will be a loud tone". A button is pressed which causes this loud touchtone (I haven't been able to determine if it is the DTMF '#' or 'D' or something else) followed by a modem screech. The COCOT's internal chips recognizes these tones and then *internally* goes on-hook to the loop momentarily, then goes off-hook to the loop getting telco central office dialtone. It then touchtones out the proper DTMF digit string, such as '0' or '0+intralata' over the loop. Sometimes, when using a COCOT with its AOSlime and demanding a Bell Operator (I HAD entered 0(#) or an intralata 0+ten-digits string but the COCOT still diverts me to AOSlime), the AOSlime will do what they are supposed to instructing me an pressing the transfer-back tone button. However the inside chips of the damned COCOT will DTMF over the loop something like 10-222-0(+) or 10-333-0(+), or some other 10-XXX-0(+), thus *still* routing me to something *other* than my BellSouth intralata Operator or TOPS services. This is *particularly* frustrating when I want to bill a *local* call to my calling card, but want to place it through BellSouth's TOPS and *not* an IXC (not even AT&T). BellSouth charges $1.00 FLAT (untimed) for *local* calls billed to calling cards for here in Louisiana. When you can access an AT&T Operator (or any IXC operator), they don't recognize the fact that the call is really *local* and thus charge you a timed rate also based on mileage between the originating NPA-NXX and destination NPA-NXX, even though it really is *local*. (And as mentioned above, I'm not aware of any working 1-800 or 950 number nor 10-XXX/101-XXXX code to reach a BellSouth Operator from here in Louisiana). And while the law mentions 10-XXX-0+ access from COCOTS, when the law was written it didn't really mention 101-XXXX. Try dialing something like: 101-0x19-00 for the Operator of the carrier using any "x19" or "0x19" fg.D code. As far as the COCOT chips are concerned, you've just dialed: 10-10x-1-900, and COCOTS block 1-900 numbers. IMO, the FCC/FTC and the various state agencies *should really* been been policing COCOTS *MUCH* more strictly than they actually have been for the past twelve or so years. And I think things are only going to get worse. But what about those Canadian visitors here trying to dial 800-555-1111 (which Bell Canada and its "sister" Stentor telcos are heavily promoting) and actually *any and every* holder of an 800-555-xxxx number (and toll free 888 number)! COCOTS (as well as Hotel/Motel/Hospital/Dormatory/etc. PBX's) and their associated AOSlime seem to be accountable to nobody! 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: Tue, 14 May 1996 08:44:09 -0500 From: kelly.breit@netalliance.net (Kelly Breit) Subject: Macintosh Extensions Guide Forwarded to the Digest FYI: Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 18:53:33 -0400 From: MacWay@aol.com Subject: Macintosh Extensions Guide At last: I've been wishing for this for a long time! Guy This tidbit is from: (Jason Haas) Macintosh Associates/Madison Web Works announces the Macintosh Extensions Guide! --- Have you ever wondered what A/ROSE is for? Do you want to remove MathLib from your Mac Plus, but aren't sure what would happen if you do? What are these enablers in my System Folder for? Find out in the Macintosh Extensions Guide! The Guide is a catalog of most of the Mac's extensions, control panels and enablers. Each item's function is explained in plain English, and whenver possible, special tips, tricks and caveats are included. Currently, the Guide encompasses the bulk of extensions found in System 7.5 and higher, with items from 7.1, 7.0.1 and 6.0.x being added weekly. The Guide is divided into four sections: Control Panels, Extensions, Enablers and Open Transport. Within each section, there is an alphabetical listing of extensions, with links to a page containing a description of the extension's function, and, where possible, a screen shot. The Enablers are grouped by the models of Macintoshes, and listed in two formats: a Netscape 2.0-based table, and a plain-text listing. We hope you enjoy the Guide, and invite all Mac users to learn what's in their System Folders! Aim your browser at: ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 10:13:05 -0400 From: Jason Fetterolf Subject: What is "Feature Group A"? Organization: Apollo Concepts I was recently asked by an friend who sells phone systems if I (as a marketer of several LD services) could provide/recommend a low cost feature group A (FGA) installation. My friend did not know anything about FGA, except that it was recommended by another competing interconnect, as a way to reduce local toll costs. According to my friend, the small company that was told they should have FGA installed is only using this for voice applications, and has about 10 employees total. This company is located in West Chester, PA, 25 mi W from Phila. Monthly traffic unknown, but must be moderate for intraLATA. My questions are these: 1. What is the purpose of FGA? 2. What are the more cost effective alternatives to FGA usage? 3. Is this obsolete technology? 4. Can I offer a more simple technology (dialer to route intraLATA calls, etc) to help them reduce costs? Thanks to all TELECOM Digest readers who may have some answers! Regards, Jason ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 10:13:07 -0400 From: Jason Fetterolf Subject: Does Dialing LD Access Code Prevent IntraLATA *69 Function? Organization: Sometimes I live in Southeastern Pennsylvania, where Bell Atlantic reigns over 215/610 (PA) and 302 (Delaware)area codes as its intraLATA territory. The *69 feature (call return to last calling party) is offered here, and I have noted in the past that if I dial a long distance company 10XXX code before making an intraLATA toll call, that any attempts by the receiving party to later use the *69 feature, and call me back, would prove ineffective. The other party would simply get a message stating: "We're sorry, but this service can not be used for a call that is out of this sevice area ..." or something like that ... Any how, the other day, someone used the *69 feature to call me back, but I was *certain* that I had dialed 10XXX before the seven digit toll call. HOW could this happen? Does not the routing of calls through the LD carrier's switch cause this *69 feautue to be disabled? Thanks to anyone with some knowledge/experience on this matter. Regards, Jason ------------------------------ From: Jim Oakley Subject: Employment Oppoortunity: Engineers Needed - Telecom Start-up Organization: ArrayComm, Inc. Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 18:33:15 GMT ArrayComm, a rapidly growing company in San Jose California, is developing base station technology for wireless communication systems based on state-of-the-art signal processing techniques. In particular, we build boards packed with DSPs that process signals from arrays of antennas to improve the performance of cellular telephone systems. We are looking for strong numerical C programmers and assembly level DSP programmers who enjoy working with a superb team of engineers. If you have experience with cellular communications protocols such as AMPS, IS-54, IS-95, GSM, DCS 1800/1900, PACS, etc, as well as a strong mathematical background, experience with UNIX workstations and real-time programming, experience with Motorola or AT&T DSP systems, and an interest in bringing up new hardware, we have the job opportunity for you. Successful SOFTWARE ENGINEERING candidates will have substantial experience in one or more of communications protocol programming, DSP programming (Mot., AT&T), scientific/numeric programming, real-time systems; and one or more of the following pluses: extensive C/Unix experience, signal processing and numerical analysis background, digital circuitry and/or communications system background, an advanced degree. BS required. Successful HARDWARE ENGINEERING candidates will have at least 5 years' experience with PCB-level high-speed digital design, including familiarity with RISC processors, DSP designs, and designing using FPGAs/PLDs. This position also requires hands-on lab prototyping and testing, and familiarity with schematic entry and PCB layout. Knowledge of RF, signal processing techniques and/or diagnostic software is a plus. BSEE required, MSEE preferred. Successful LABORATORY TECHNICIAN candidates will have strong troubleshooting skills for high speed digital circuits including DSPs and CPUs. Knowledge of RF techniques and measurements is a plus, as is experience with cellular phone test equipment and with Allegro PCB layout. Some familiarity with Unix and Windows-based workstations is required. Successful APPLIED RESEARCH candidates will participate in continued development of the company's core technologies which are the syntheses of methods from numerical analysis, statistical signal processing, estimation and detection theory, communications theory, channel and source coding, electro-magnetic theory, and operations research/optimization. Successful candidates should be capable of realizing their solutions in a high-level computer language, and designing and participating in experiments of test modeling assumptions and proposed solutions. Experience in the wireless communications industry will be considered a significant plus, as will experience with RF hardware, real-time signal processing or embedded systems. This position requires an MS or a Ph.D. All candidates should be creative and self-motivated, possess strong analytical skills, strong interpersonal skills and be comfortable in a team-work setting. Excellent verbal and written communication skills are required. Please send your resume via e-mail to Hum.Res@arraycomm.com (ascii text, postscript), by fax to (408) 428-9083, or by mail to: Human Resources Department, ArrayComm, Inc., 3141 Zanker Road, San Jose, CA 95134. A skills test may be required. EOE. ------------------------------ From: R. Schechtman Subject: Average Calls per Cellular Subscriber? Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 10:57:33 -0500 Organization: BBN I'm looking for statistics on calling patterns for cellular subscribers, in particular, average number of calls per month. Any pointers? ------------------------------ From: aj.knox@auckland.ac.nz (Andrew Knox) Subject: NZer Travelling to America: Cellphone Connection Wanted Date: 14 May 1996 04:22:13 GMT Organization: University of Auckland Hi, I will probably be travelling to USA and Mexico in late October-> late November and today asked my local Cellular Service Provider about roaming in North America. They want to charge me USD$0.99/min + toll rates for both incoming and outgoing calls within the US and will only allow international calls via a Telecom NZ phonecard which costs $2.80+/call + toll fee + cellular per minute charge. I was wondering whether there are any US Cellular carriers who will connect for 1-2 months and if so what there rates are. Are there any schemes which do not charge for incoming calls (in NZ I pay for outgoing calls only)?. Also does anyone know which are the best American Calling cards and what their rates are to NZ -- also are they available to NZers? I can be reached by email to aj.knox@auckland.ac.nz. Thanks, Dr. Andrew Knox ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #236 ******************************