Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA28423; Wed, 15 May 1996 13:29:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 13:29:03 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605151729.NAA28423@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #238 TELECOM Digest Wed, 15 May 96 13:29:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 238 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson FCC Establishes FRS (Bennett Kobb) Re: 800/888 and COCOTS (Van Hefner) Is There a Mexican FCC? (David Esan) Executone is Acting Like the Old Ma Bell (reb@local.com) Re: Anyone Else Slammed By Heartline? (Lawrence Rachman) Re: Anyone Else Slammed by Heartline? (Van Heffner) BA Announces Relief Plans For 215/610 (John Cropper) For Sale: Newbridge 3624 Main Street Channel Bank (Mark Engelhardt) CDPD in Salt Lake City, UT (Blair Shellenberg) Motorola Automated Data Dispatch System (Blair Shellenberg) COCOTs Without the Alphabet on the Keys! (reb@local.com) How to Learn of Planned NXX's Before Their Opening? (Steve Chilinski) For Sale: KX-TD 1232 Panasonic Phone System (Mark Engelhardt) Outrageous LD 0+ calls via Oncor Communications Inc. (Rupa Schomaker) Help Needed With Ameritech (Chicago)! (kevin@eagle.ais.net) Please read the information at the bottom of this issue! It is very important! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bkobb@netcom.com (Bennett Kobb) Subject: FCC Establishes FRS Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 13:08:48 GMT Yesterday the Federal Communications Commission announced it has created the Family Radio Service (FRS) in the 462 and 467 MHz bands. The FRS was proposed by Tandy/Radio Shack, supported by Motorola, Uniden and Cobra, and opposed by a substantial majority of commenters. A key issue is whether data communications will be possible in this low-power FM service (even if prohibited), and whether FCC rules will require that the radios be designed to inhibit data connections. I expect the Commission to release the full text of its decision and rules for the Family Radio Service this week. I will post this material on the New Signals web site. Bennett Kobb SpectrumGuide/America's Airwaves http://home.navisoft.com/nspi ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 07:09:39 -0700 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: Re: 800/888 and COCOTS Mark J. Cuccia recently wrote: > 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. The state of Texas (for one) recently passed legislation allowing payphone operators to charge up to $.25 per call to ALL 800/888 numbers. In addition, the new charge for all local payphone calls in that state will also be raised (to $.50). This charge is NOT being imposed by the AOS, but by the COCOTs themselves, INCLUDING GTE and SW BELL (their idea in the first place). It is not just COCOT's ripping people off these days. BTW, I'm not sure how this plays out regarding federal regulations banning charging of a fee for "toll-free" calls. I guess that an arguement could be made that people are actually paying $.25 for "leasing the phone" for 15 minutes. Glad I don't live (or will visit) Texas. Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest On The Web: http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would not let something as silly as that stop me from visiting Texas, which is a wonderful place with some very fine people. The theory behind charging for calls to 800/888 from a COCOT is that the COCOT owner has no way to be compensated for the call otherwise, and it is felt he is entitled to compensation on all calls, the same as any telco. Like any other long distance call, part of the charge (usually collected from the recipient in the case of 'toll free' calls) goes back to the originating telco. In other words, the revenue from those calls is divided among the carriers involved the same as on regular long distance calls. On regular long distance calls, the COCOT operator has you put the money in the box, therefore he gets his portion after paying the telco whose line he is on. In the case of 800/888, there is no money to put in the box, but he still wants his portion. A point could be made perhaps that telco should be required to pay commissions on long distance traffic handled by COCOTs which would take care of that problem, but that is not how it is done at this time. That is why the COCOT user has to pay. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Esan <103145.117@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Is There a Mexican FCC? Date: 15 May 1996 14:34:29 GMT Organization: MOSCOM Is there an organization analogous to the US FCC in Mexico? I want to be able to purchase TELMEX tariffs, and when competition comes, the tariffs of their competitors. Gracias in advance. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 09:58:03 +0000 From: Phydeaux Subject: Executone is Acting Like the Old Ma Bell Hi! I was just given an Executone Equity III phone system by a relative who has moved his office. I wish to install it in my home. Unfortu- nately, Executone is most uncooperative and refuses to provide any information whatsoever that will allow me to install the system. Aside from telling me it was against company policy to sell install- ation manuals, they claimed that it was "Against Federal regulations" for me to install it by myself. What a load of crap. For installation, they charge $180 to install the system plus $90 per extension. I've done all the inside wiring in the house for the phones and the computer network myself. Paying over $1000 for something I could easily do in an afternoon is totally unacceptable. I'm hoping that some TELECOM Digest reader out there will be able to provide information that will allow me to install the system. I also hope Executone realizes someday that 1984 has come and gone. Thanks, reb reb@local.com ------------------------------ Date: 15 May 96 09:14:10 EDT From: Lawrence Rachman <74066.2004@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Anyone Else Slammed By Heartline? Yeah ... we got slammed by these folks about a year ago. From Robert's description, it sounds like nothing has changed. As with Robert, I opened my phone bill one month to find the unpleasant surprise of the Heartline logo and monthly fee. I immediately called NYNEX, and they agreed to remove the charges and switch me back to AT&T. (We also had a heated discussion on the limited worth of the password I'd already placed on the account.) They did, however, indicate that Heartland would bill me directly unless I contacted them. Interesting side note here: The phone in question is billed to me, but listed in the phone book to my stepson. I called them up, ready for war. We went through the usual nonsense about someone else in your family requesting the change, etc., after which they "looked it up" and told me that they had a written request on file. I told them that I would be contesting the charges, and to please send a photocopy of the written request. What arrived in the mail some time later was one of these coupons you sometimes find a box of in restaurants or other public places. A great big headline that says WIN THIS JEEP!!!, a place to fill out your name, and some tiny text on the bottom explaining the real intent of a coupon. Usually, you're agreeing to be solicited for timeshare condos, but this one was a switch to Heartline Communications. My stepson's name, and a marginal attempt at his signature, was filled into the blanks. When I confronted him, he swore he hadn't filled in the form, that it wasn't his signature (didn't look that close to me, either), and that he *always* signs his name with the middle initial "W". The "W" was conspicuously absent from the signature on the form. Anyway, Heartline never tried to bill me for the three months of monthly service, and I never got around to mailing the whole package to the Attorney General's office. End of story. It seems to me like these folks were trawling the phone directory slamming folks. And I guess it worked often enough, as they're still doing it. Keep your eyes peeled; its dangerous out there, folks. LR ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 07:09:25 -0700 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: Re: Anyone Else Slammed by Heartline? Robert Bononno recently said: > Does anyone have any additional information on Heartline? I'd be > interested in hearing other reports. I'm seriously considering writing > to the Public Service Commission here in NY and the FCC. I mean, this > is fraud after all. Heartline has a long history of complaints regarding slamming. Below is an excerpt from a recent article we did concerning known "slammers". The entire text is available in our April 1996 issue (available at the website below): HEARTLINE COMMUNICATIONS AKA TOTAL NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS (TNT) This is the newest company to enter the DLD Digest "Hall of Shame" (still under construction). The company seems to have a very colorful history, including multiple slamming complaints, alleged LOA forgery, targeting minority customers for slamming and operating in at least one state without proper licensing. The company has received a whopping 10,561+ slamming complaints against it since Novemember 1995 in the state of California alone. The California State Public Utilities Commission has launched an extensive investigation into the company's operations, and has scheduled a hearing to determine whether the company should have it's ability to switch a long distance customer's services revoked. The CPUC claims that the company not only operated without the proper licensing required for a reseller in that state, but has refused to respond to the CPUC about various allegations concerning their business practices. In addition, Heartline has been accused of signing-up customers illegally by offering "raffle tickets", then using the information contained on those tickets to switch the person's long distance carrier without their consent. The company seems to be operated by an ultra-conservate right-wing religious group in Houston, Texas. When we contacted them by phone several months ago (to investigate a slamming complaint lodged against them by one of our customers), they misrepresented themselves to us as being a long distance carrier, when in fact they are actually a switchless reseller of the WilTel Network. Their customer service representative was one of the rudest people we have ever come across (even worse than certain AT&T operators!). The {San Francisco Chronicle} reported earlier this month that the company is also being investigated for possible civil, regulatory and criminal misconduct. The article noted that over half of the customers that Heartline had switched to their service recently indicated Spanish as their primary language to Pacific Bell, leading to allegations that the company is targeting poor non-English speaking customers as easy slamming targets. It was also noted that some LOA's used by the company appareantly contained forged signatures. In one case an apparant victim of the company turned-out to be a communications administrator at a major electronics firm! We have seen several press clippings about the company recently, and we know of at least one feature article being written about them in a major mainstream magazine. This company has the potential to join the ranks of such illustrious firms as CTS/WORLDxCHANGE, Cherry Communications and Sonic! Stay tuned for more information on these guys. LATE UPDATE: 05/13/96 Heartline is attempting to block any action from being taken against them by the California Public Utilities Commission on the basis that they are "exempt" from PUC regulation. The company may be taking this to the federal level, though we are not certain what the basis for their claim is (perhaps separation of church and state?!!?). Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest On The Web: http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS 326 "I" Street, Suite 148 Eureka, CA 95501-0522 U.S.A. (707) 444-6686 PHONE - (707) 445-4123 FAX ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: BA Announces Relief Plans for 215/610 Date: 15 May 1996 09:52:48 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA Yesterday, BA released plans to the media to introduce "two or more" new area codes to the 215/610 area. Projections now show the potential for 610 to exhaust by mid-1998, and 215 to exhaust by early 1999 (hence the need for action now). Several methods of relief will be introduced, and hearings held this summer. 610 split from 215 in 1994, and was originally projected to last until 2004. John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice: (800) 247-8675 fax: (609) 637-9430 psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ From: Mark Engelhardt Subject: For Sale: Newbridge 3624 Main Street Channel Bank Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 18:21:48 -0500 Organization: Wayzata Technology Inc Reply-To: MarkEngelhardt@Wayzata-Tech.com For Sale: Newbridge 3624 Main Street Channel Bank; Configured for 22 Voice circuits (LGS) and 2 56K data circuits (DNIC); Includes a DTU (Model 2603 Mainstreet) for connecting to V.35; Asking $3000.00. Mark Engelhardt, CEO Wayzata Technology Inc 21 Northeast Fourth Street Grand Rapids, Minnesota 55744 Office.....................(218) 326-0597 Office (Toll Free)....... .1-800-735-7321 Office Fax.................(218) 326-0598 World Wide Web....http://Wayzata-Tech.com ------------------------------------------- E-Mail --> MarkEngelhardt@Wayzata-Tech.com =========================================== ------------------------------ From: blair@instep.bc.ca Subject: CDPD in Salt Lake City, UT Reply-To: blair@instep.bc.ca Organization: InStep Mobile Communications Inc. Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 20:50:22 GMT Hi there, I am looking for contact information for the CDPD provider in Salt Lake City, UT. I believe the provider is AT&T Wireless Services. If you know someone or are involved with AT&T in Utah, please contact me at . I look forward to your response. Sincerely, InStep Mobile Communications Inc. Blair Shellenberg ------------------------------ From: blair@instep.bc.ca Subject: Motorola Automated Data Dispatch System Reply-To: blair@instep.bc.ca Organization: InStep Mobile Communications Inc. Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 20:41:50 GMT I am interested in finding out more on a Motorola dispatching system called MADDS. Motorola Automated Data Dispatch System From what I understand, the system runs on Motorola UNIX boxes. Motorola apparently had so many problems with the product that they gave it away to the eight or so taxi companies that bought the MADDS system. These companies formed a group to service and enhance the MADDS product but do not have support from Motorola (we will call this the MADDS consortium). The system uses KDT-440 MDTs (Mobile Data Terminals) with private radio systems. What I would like to know is the following: 1) Which companies had/have the MADDS system. 2) Which companies are part of the MADDS consortium. 3) Any information pertaining to the MADDS system. If you can provide me with any of the information I am looking for it will be greatly appreciated. Please post your response on the newsgroup or contact me at my e-mail address . Sincerely, Blair [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You might want to contact a company called 'American Taxi Dispatch' here in the Chicago north suburban area. Essentially they are the radio dispatching service for a large number of taxicab drivers operating under the 'American Taxi' label in Skokie, Morton Grove, Arlington Heights and numerous other small communities in this area. The drivers are all independent business people, with their taxicab being an 'agency'. They all own their own cabs and they subscribe to or are members of American Taxi Dispatch. I *love* the automated system. In the past you could wait on hold for five minutes at times to reach an operator at the radio room when it was a busy period. The log jam was horrible, and then once you got through to an operator your order was written down and taken to another room where dispatchers talked on the air almost constantly giving out the orders. They would get the orders mixed up; some would get lost in the shuffle entirely, etc. The dispatcher would read your name and address over the air and anyone monitoring those frequencies with a scanner would hear the order. Competing taxicab firms would also monitor those frequencies then hurry over and steal the most lucrative or juicy orders before the assigned driver could arrive. Under the new system, you are on and off the phone in 30-45 seconds. You dial in and use the touchtone keys on your phone to enter the order directly into the computer which then plays it out in the form of a 'queue' with the radio dispatcher seeing the order on a terminal. When he locates a cab in the general vicinity using the radio, and detirmines the driver is free to accept an order he only has to type a few keys on the terminal and then announce over the radio to the driver that, 'the order is on your pager'. Each driver has a little display pager in addition to the radio. This display pager gives the address and other particulars so that part is not read over the air any longer in most cases. When you call in, if you know the voice prompts the computer is going to say to you, then you don't even have to wait for the prompts. You can 'punch through the prompts' in a matter of seconds. The first time they may not have your phone number on file, and that call will take a couple minutes longer, but after the first time, the computer matches your address to the phone number you give. At any time you can punch zero and bail out to an operator, but sometimes with a delay before an operator answers, but never as long as it used to be. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 18:04:33 +0000 From: Phydeaux Subject: COCOTs Without the Alphabet on the Keys! I've heard recently that some COCOT operators have been installing telephones WITHOUT the alphabet on the keys. This is so you will not know how to call 1-800-COLLECT of 1-800-CALL-ATT to bypass their overpriced long distance service. Talk about slime ... reb reb@taco.com ------------------------------ From: Steve.Chilinski@uunet.uu.net Subject: How to Learn of Planned NXX's Before Their Opening? Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 05:44:22 GMT Organization: Gateway to Internet Services Reply-To: chili@gwis.com Does anyone know how I can learn in advance the planned new telephone exchanges in an area code? Are there web sites available, or is there a number to call? I am located in the 330 NPA. Thanks, Steve ------------------------------ From: Mark Engelhardt Subject: For Sale: KX-TD 1232 Panasonic Phone System Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 18:49:37 -0500 Organization: Wayzata Technology Inc Reply-To: MarkEngelhardt@Wayzata-Tech.com I have a Panasonic KX-TD System with the XDP Port for sale: The system has the extra cards for all 12 CO Lines and cards for 24 extensions (still room for one more card). (Note with the XDP you get another 24 extensions.) I have 13 of the DISPLAY phones (#7230); And one DSS unit. I love this phone system but I have to sell it, Please make me a FAIR offer. I paid over $6000.00. It is only ten months old. Mark Engelhardt, CEO Wayzata Technology Inc 21 Northeast Fourth Street Grand Rapids, Minnesota 55744 Office.....................(218) 326-0597 Office (Toll Free)....... .1-800-735-7321 Office Fax.................(218) 326-0598 World Wide Web....http://Wayzata-Tech.com ------------------------------------------- E-Mail --> MarkEngelhardt@Wayzata-Tech.com =========================================== ------------------------------ From: rupa@rupa.com (Rupa Schomaker) Subject: Outrageous LD 0+ Calls via Oncor Communications Inc. Date: 14 May 1996 13:07:01 -0700 Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet Reply-To: rupa@rupa.com I received my phone bill today and one page on the end is for a $9.03 call that lasted two minutes from Beverly Hills CA to Sugar Land TX at 12:05pm. Over $4.5/min is ridiculous so I called the 800 number on the bill. I immediately got a service rep who explained to me that "because Oncor leases their lines rather than owning them they have significantly higher costs than AT&T and they just pass their calls onto the subscribers." After talking some more, it turns out they just do billing, ie: they are reselling service. I mentioned that traditionally such resold service is *cheaper* than going through AT&T. She says "well, we are just passing our costs on." After some more talk I remind her that 9.03 for a two minute call is ridiculous and is more than I'd be willing to spend even for interna- tional calls, what to speak of calls from CA to TX. After some more talking she says "let me put you on hold" and then after coming back offers to give me a pre-paid calling card with twelve minutes on it for free. At this point I simply agreed to take it since I didn't want to spend any more time dealing with it. Two questions: Should I have refused to pay for their portion of the bill? How can they get away with such a HUGE minute rate? I can see them marking up LD 100% but this is completely ridiculous. ------------------------------ From: kevin@eagle.ais.net Subject: Help Needed With Ameritech (Chicago)! Date: 14 May 1996 20:16:32 GMT Organization: American Information Systems, Inc. I need some help now on who to talk to, how to reach them, and what to say. Here are two situations I am fighting right now: Situation ONE: Billed --> Line 1 Billed --\____ Line 2 together --/ Line 3 All residential ... called 800-244-4444 to disconnect Line 3. They disconnect Line 2 and Line 3. Called to get Line 2 put back in service (it's been around for TWENTY years now) and it was placed back to the pair where Line 3 was. Now, after ten calls, it is supposed to be fixed tomorrow (40 some odd hours later). I have been bounced from the 244-4444 number to the installation office to the repair office. Everyone points the finger elsewhere. In the mean time I effectively have NO SERVICE. It took them 20 minutes to disconnect Line 2 and Line 3 but it's going to take them 24 HOURS to fix their mistake? Who can I complain to? And how can I get this fixed FASTER? Situation TWO: Have ten centrex lines. If I originate call -A- outside of the centrex 'group' (ie: 9, number) and then TAP/Flash the line and originate call -B- outside of the centrex group (ie: 9, number) and hang up call -A- is disconnected (this should transfer the call, btw). Incoming calls or originating call -A- or -B- INSIDE the centrex group will transfer the call as it should. The business these lines are used for is spread throughout the country and 99% of the time both calls (-A- and -B-) will be originating and outside the centrex group. 50% of those calls will need to be transfered to yet another location. Effectively I do not have phone service here as well. For the Centrex office (repair) I have all 708-524 numbers to call; Have had no luck for over two months on this problem (since installation/switch over from POTS). I was given a number to call, "Executive Appeals" (312-727-9411). Can I go any higher? Do I have *ANY* recourse? My combined Ameritech phone bills in a month excedes $5k (not including Cellular One and AT&T usage). I realize that I am small beans compared to the big guys, but... The bottom line is that I want service that I have already paid for but am not getting. I just want the service ... ANY help would be greatly appreciated! ------------------------------ 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 #238 ******************************