Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA10750; Fri, 17 May 1996 12:15:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 12:15:28 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605171615.MAA10750@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #242 TELECOM Digest Fri, 17 May 96 12:15:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 242 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Class Action Suit Over 970 NPA (Denver Post via Tad Cook) Third Houston NPA (Houston Chronicle via Tad Cook) Sprint FONCARD Rates (Stuart J. Zimmerman) Bell Atlantic's "Ten Number Number" and Area Code Split (Paul Robinson) USBI Charges Reversed (was Re: Not Slammed) (Bill Garfield) Hurting Public Utilities Hurts Public Service (Lisa Hancock) "NPA for Windows" 2Q96 Update (Bill Garfield) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tad Cook Subject: Class Action Suit Over 970 NPA Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 23:45:42 PDT Business Can Join Class-Action Suit over Colorado's New Area Code, Court Says By Stephen Keating, The Denver Post Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News May 17--Up to 10,000 businesses in Colorado's new 970 area code can join a class-action suit claiming damages against US West Inc. in conjunction with introduction of the new area code, a district court judge ruled. Notice of the class action will be sent with future phone bills to US West business customers in northern and western Colorado, according to an order signed Wednesday by Judge Al A. Haas in La Plata County. Trouble with the 970 area code began a year ago when callers outside the region had difficulty calling in. US West agreed to delay the switchover until this past January, while keeping the 303 area code, but some firms claimed the damage had been done. "People were losing business," said Thomas P. Dugan, the plaintiffs' attorney, who estimated total damages in the "multimillion-dollar" range. US West is "disappointed with the judge's decision," said company spokesman Jeff Garrett. "For the vast majority of customers, the change in area code had no impact on their business." US West, like other Baby Bells, has added new area codes to meet growth. There are more than 20 new area codes -- some with middle digits other than 0 or 1 -- that create problems for older telephone switching equipment that can't recognize higher middle digits, as with 970. Mail-order and tourism services that do business by long distance had the most trouble. George Crane, owner of Silverton Victorian Millworks Inc. in Durango, was the first plaintiff in the initial lawsuit filed last July. He claimed losses of $50,000 a week from customers who could not fax in orders for the company's decorative wood products. "The problems have been reduced over a period of time," a Silverton manager said yesterday. It may be difficult, however, for businesses to prove damages from calls that never came. "I think it's unlikely that any businesses will benefit" from the lawsuit, said Greg Walcher, president of Club 20, a Western Slope promotional group that pressured US West and the state Public Utilities Commission to delay the area code change. ON THE INTERNET: Visit The Denver Post Online, the World Wide Web edition of The Denver Post. Point your browser to http://www.denverpost.com ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Third Houston NPA Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 15:21:40 PDT Southwestern Bell May Ask Texas for a Third Houston Area Code By Michael Davis, Houston Chronicle Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News May 16--As state regulators and phone companies hash out the details of splitting Houston into two area codes, Southwestern Bell said Wednesday it is considering the idea of asking for a third area code for the city. Southwestern Bell is expected to file a petition with the Public Utility Commission on Monday laying out its plan for easing the transition of dividing Houston into more than one area code. Company officials said asking the PUC to authorize a third code for Houston is among the options being considered for the filing. Houston is one of the largest cities in the nation with almost complete local service. In cities such as Chicago or Los Angeles, many calls within the city limits are long distance. The PUC issued its order May 1 mandating that the city be split geographically into area code 713 inside Beltway 8, and area code 281 outside it. Those who are involved in the case have 20 days in which to file motions for rehearing or clarification of the order. Under the current plan, Houston will begin a "permissive period" in November in which calls between the area codes can be dialed with either a 713 or 281 area code. The final implementation of the split is set for May 1997. The notion of adding a third area code in Houston has come up before in PUC hearings, but to date no one has formally asked the commission to consider such a plan, said Leslie Kjellstrand, PUC spokeswoman. "We are going to be watching this filing Monday very closely," she said. Southwestern Bell has been issuing 281 area code numbers for wireless devices for the past year on the assumption there would be an area code overlay. Under a split, some of these 281 area code numbers would duplicate numbers that would change from the 713 area code. As it stands now, the party that had the seven-digit number first likely will keep it when the area code changes. That means the other person with the number will have to change to a different one. A third area code -- possibly an overlay -- would eliminate this duplication. But the Federal Communications Commission has said a service-specific overlay is discriminatory, so the notion of a general services overlay raises doubts as to whether it could be approved by the FCC. "In Austin, there are continuing discussions between our representatives and PUC staff trying to figure out what else can we do, and they are looking at other options that could include (a third area code) but it has not been decided," said Mike Turner, vice president with Southwestern Bell in Houston. Joe Cosgrove, an attorney with Southwestern Bell in Austin who is the company's representative in negotiations with the PUC, said the firm's petition on the problems it faces implementing the split would be filed Monday, although he would not confirm it would include asking for a third area code. "We're not ruling anything out," Cosgrove said. The situation is still very much in flux. Even if Southwestern Bell asks for a third area code, it remains to be seen if the commission would approve such a plan, Kjellstrand said. The commission will have 25 days to consider all the motions that have been filed regarding its May 1 order mandating the geographic split. It can extend that period for another 25 days, which would push the decision on a proposal well into summer. Southwestern Bell has favored an overlay since it became evident that Houston would require a second area code to handle the city's burgeoning telecommunications needs, stemming largely from explosive growth in the use of wireless devices such as pagers, cellular phones, computers and faxes. FOR ONLINE SERVICES: Visit Houston Chronicle Interactive, the online edition of the Houston Chronicle. On Prodigy, jump to: HCI. On the World Wide Web, point your browser to http://www.chron.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 17:01:16 -0400 From: f_save@SNET.Net (Stuart J. Zimmerman) Subject: Sprint FONCARD Rates There is further information on Sprint's FONCARD without surcharges program that you and your readers should know about. The program requires customers to sign up for it IN ADVANCE. Also, in order to get the 25 cents per minute rate they must be members of the Sprint Sense program. These requirements were not clear from the press release, but having seen this sort of thing before, it is not surprising. These marketing practices do seem quite sleazy. Fone Saver, LLC Phone: 1-800-31-FONE-1 Web: http://www.wp.com/Fone_Saver E-Mail: f_save@snet.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They are quite sleazy. Generally I have decided to not run any further Sprint press releases here; they are frequently misleading and deceptive. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 08:12:25 EDT From: Paul Robinson Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. Silver Spring, MD USA Subject: Bell Atlantic's "Ten Number Number" and Area Code Split When I first heard about the upcoming practice, I was upset. What I started to say was, "In yet another example of their 'usual and customary' practice of doing very difficult things with ease and screwing up on the rudimentary, Bell Atlantic (Maryland) is about to institute what is one of the stupidest ideas around," but then I thought about it, and much as I don't like it, I realize they probably have no choice. What upset me is that Bell Atlantic is implementing mandatory ten-digit dialing, even for local, same-area-code calls. They are calling the practice the "Ten Number Number"(SM) (and even have the silliness to claim a servicemark right on that term, which is obviously generic.) A pamphlet enclosed with the latest bill I got from them for current (non-supplied) service for a line they disconnected over six months ago, states that Area Code 301 will be split with a new area code 240, and that area code 410 will be split with a new area code 443. In this region, one dials a number in one of three ways depending on where it is: Local in same area code Dial 7 digit number Local in same or another area code Dial 3 digit area code plus 7 digit number Local and all long distance calls Dial 1 Plus 3 digit area code plus 7 digit number Note that (right now) you can dial the area code even if it is the same as your own, and dialing 1 before the number does not cause it to be charged as a toll call. I like this feature because if you are at a pay phone, and aren't sure what area code the pay phone is in, you can always dial the ten-digit number on a local call and get through. For simplicity I am exclusing the use of a 10XXX (we don't have 10XXXX) carrier code before a number - which may be used even on a local call, if you want to pay per-minute rates on a call that might be free - in order to show that a local number can (now) be dialed with or without the area code, and with or without the number 1 before the area code, and that a local call outside this area code may be dialed with or without the number 1 in front of the area code. It does not change the price of a call or turn it into a toll-call even if you dial "1" first. But I don't like having this be forced on me, even though I understand that Bell Atlantic probably has no choice in the matter, since the area code used for a local number will look the same as a regular prefix, and as such, anyone calling a number local to them such as 443-xxxx or 240-xxxx would have to dial the area code anyway, which might be confusing. As a result, soon everyone has to dial ten digits for all local calls. Ten digit same-area-code local dialing will be mandatory in one year. I quote from the pamphlet: "Soon your area code will become part of your local phone number. That means every time you make a local call -- even calls within your own area code -- you should include the three-digit area code when you dial. It'll make every number a Ten-number Number(SM). Start practicing it today. Come May 1, 1997, all your local calls will require the Ten-number Number." The pamphlet mentions that calls to 911, 411, 611 and long-distance dialing remain the same, that rates will not change. It suggests that people reprogram computers, fax machines and automatic dialers since you can already dial ten digits now on local calls, and will have to next year. Telephone directories will now carry people's full ten-digit phone number since the person next door or across the street might be in a different area code: "Your area code and phone number won't change. But the area code of your new next-door neighbor might be different from yours." They list a number you can call for assistance: 1-888-4-AREA-CD, 9-5 Monday thru Friday. ------------------------------ From: bubba@insync.net (Bill Garfield) Subject: USBI Charges Reversed (was Re: Not Slammed) Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 05:25:45 GMT Organization: Associated Technical Consultants Reply-To: bubba@insync.net For the sake of continuity I have requoted my original remarks of 12/95: borids@aol.com (Borids) wrote: > File a formal complaint with the FCC. Filing a formal complaint with the FCC costs $140. The amount in contention, aside from the principle of being slammed, is $69.68. The correct amount of the bill, had I not been slammed, should be $11.62, including federal, state and local taxes. > USBI should be able to tell you the acronym for the reseller that is > billing you by way of USBI. The company name is "CCN" which is an acronym for CCN. USBI is merely a billing agent for CCN. I have a couple of definitions of my own for "CCN" but they're most unflattering. > You were given a line of #@!!! I was read to from a prepared script. Here now is my original reply: > On advise of counsel I have written -two- letters. The first to > Southwestern Bell instructing them to: > 1. Remove the USBI charges from my bill and notify USBI they will > have to pursue collection through direct methods with the customer > (me). I paid my SWBT bill, MINUS the contested charges from USBI. > 2. Reinstate my primary long distance service provider immediately. > 3. Never again change my LD service provider without prior WRITTEN > authorization from me. (It -IS- possible to demand this and Bell > is thereafter forever barred from allowing another change) > The second letter went to USBI, at PO Box 791285, San Antonio, TX, > informing them in no vague or unscertain terms whatsoever: > 1. That CCN is -not- my primary LD provider nor ever has been. > 2. That I have signed no Letter Of Agency authorizing a change of my > primary LD provider. > 3. Demanding that they furnish me with proof (the Letter Of Agency) by > which authority CCN has arbitrarily changed my primary LD provider. > 4. That SWBT has been instructed to remove all USBI charges from my > SWBT account. > 5. That if USBI or their client wish to pursue any portion of the > $69.68 in contested charges that they are to deal with me directly. > I assure everyone in this forum that I have not signed anything remotely > resembling the FCC's detailed description of the official "Letter Of > Agency" required under FCC rule subpart K section 64.1150 to effect a > lawful change in my LD provider. Further: > We have endorsed no paper checks (we use direct deposit) > We have entered no contests (we know better) > We have requested no credit cards > We have ordered nothing over the phone > We have signed no petitions > We have made NO CHANGES in any financial dealings > We have returned no surveys > We have spoken with no door-to-door purveyors > We have sent in no warranty registration cards > We have sent in no product purchase rebate coupons > We do not talk to telephone solicitors > We shred all mail, including occupant mail - yes, we really do > shred the mail after it's been read. I bought a Panasonic small > office shredder three years ago and use it religiously! > Now I suppose there -is- some distinct possibility that someone may have > rifled through our rural-style mailbox at the end of the drive and taken > something resembling one of those so-called "offers" in which a check is > enclosed that merely needs an endorsement to be cashed, but if so, the > endorsement is a forgery. > The calls in question were indeed made, no argument there. However, my > offer to USBI is $11.62 which I calculate as being the correct amount > for the calls. My attorney is all poised to jump on them and take the > case 'pro-bono' (free) if they give me any crap at all. > Film at 11. UPDATE: May, 1996 (yes, it's really been 5 months) I received a second bill for additional CCN charges in January - Total now in contention, $129.33 including tax. $0.78/min adds up in a hurry. In January I wrote to the Texas PUC and an informal letter to the FCC. I wrote another letter to SW Bell and another letter to USBI (via Certified Mail) offering to settle for $25.91, which was what I calculated the charges would have been had CCN not slammed me. Still no response. SW Bell did confirm that my LD provider was back to the original. I received a letter from the PUC acknowledging my complaint, but nothing from USBI or CCN. However, about the third week of April, a nice lady at SW Bell's business office called to inform me that in response to a PUC inquiry SW Bell was reversing the $129.33, charging it back to USBI (as requested) and crediting my residence account. Along with the chargeback to USBI, SWB included a letter to USBI offering them my billing address and informing USBI that they would have to pursue collection through direct billing as their (SWB's) customer had refused payment on the basis that the the PIC change was unauthorized and fraudulent and the charges were usurious. It's now been almost a month since the SWB business office called me. My May SW Bell billing has indeed been credited $129.33 though I have heard nothing from USBI. It will be interesting to see what happens next. By my calculations I owe USBI $25.91 (tax included) - but no bill from them yet. If USBI and/or CCN want to get ugly, we're ready. More news as the story unfolds. ------------------------------ From: hancock4@cpcn.com (Lisa) Subject: Hurting Public Utilities Hurts Public Service Date: 16 May 1996 02:35:26 GMT Organization: Philadelphia City Paper's City Net I agree with Pat's assessment of local telephone competition. A few things I'd like to add about today's regulatory political climate ... A newspaper columnist reported on concerns by the local power company over its investment in its very expensive nuclear power plant. The columnist's opinion was essentially "too bad" if the investment is lost -- why should the company be protected? This kind of attitude will hurt the consumer. Despite massive protest when the nuke plant was built, today its power is very much needed in hot summers for air conditioning (and PCs, faxes, etc.) Had that plant not been built, we'd have power shortages. (Some regions face that on bad summer days.) The company would not have built the plant, or not as big a plant if it felt the venture was too risky. As a regulated monopoly, the power company had reduced risk. Another benefit of regulation is lower rates. Because a service territory is guaranteed, the government dictates a low rate of return. Nobody gets rich on utility stocks. Further, the government dictates service standards. But, like telephones, the electric company will lower its rates to large users to meet competition, and raise rates to residences and small businesses since nobody will want to serve them. It troubles me that in both telephones and power the loudest voices for deregulation are potential businessmen who will make money from it. The everyday person is told "competition is good!", indeed, most people believe it, so they expect they'll get lower prices. When the phone company broke, what consumer expected higher prices for COCOT phones and long distance? What small business expected the frustration of finger pointing between local, long distance, and equipment suppliers? I'm a small potatoes consumer. Who's looking out for me? The utility companies don't really want my $25/month account -- they're looking to widen their territories and grab big industrial users. The so-called "consumer advocates" on PUCs care only about the very poor users, not the middle class. ------------------------------ From: bubba@insync.net (Bill Garfield) Subject: "NPA for Windows" 2Q96 Update Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 02:53:35 GMT Organization: Associated Technical Consultants Reply-To: bubba@insync.net I just learned that Robert Ricketts , Author of the telecom-popular "NPA for Windows" areacode/city/exchange locator utility has posted an updated version with 2nd quarter 96 lookup tables. Rather than try to explain what it is, here's the file description "brag screen" from the Zipfile NPAW96Q2.ZIP. The last sentence of which pretty much says it all. =================[snip]================================================= NPA for WINDOWS <15Apr96> - Comprehensive area code (NPA), prefix (NXX), and city name locator. Contains State, City, Prefix, AreaCode, over 100,000,000 ZipCode to NXX mappings ranked by frequency of occurrence, county name, estimated county population, lat/long for each NXX for inter-city or inter-NXX mileage calculation, NXX use type (landline/wireless), city time zone, and more for over 20,000 cities in the USA & Canada. Nearly 60,000 NPA/NXXs in all! All fields except lat/long & county population are key searchable! Tie US ZipCodes & Canadian Postal Codes to NPA/NXXs. Print, file output, and Optional Data Export. Most complete area code program you'll ever see! ==================[end]================================================= The program is available at: http://www.neosoft.com/~robert/pcc It is shareware, but not crippled. Of course there's the obligatory "beg screen" but a $35 registration payment will remove that. Looks like a pretty decent value for $35 IMO. Note that your $35 only covers the current release. Each quarterly update (new database) costs you another $35, but I believe you can also get a permanent registration for some reasonable amount (far less than the cost of anything competitive ... if there IS anything competitive). Requires MS Windows 3.x, Windows 95, etc. Nice program! ------------------------------ 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 #242 ******************************