Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id DAA20824; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 03:05:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 03:05:20 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199612120805.DAA20824@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #660 TELECOM Digest Thu, 12 Dec 96 03:05:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 660 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: COCOT 800-Access Charges (Nils Andersson) Re: COCOT 800-Access Charges (Brett Frankenberger) Re: COCOT 800-Access Charges (Joel M. Hoffman) Re: N11 Codes (Brian Purcell) Re: N11 Codes (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Canadian Use Of N11 Codes (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Canadian Use Of N11 Codes (Nils Andersson) Re: Area Code Splits - Why? (hirschd1@ix.netcom.com) Telecom History in Sweden (Sam Spens Clason) 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: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* 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: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Subject: Re: COCOT 800-Access Charges Date: 11 Dec 1996 21:36:08 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to cgordon@worldnet.att.net: > [...he no longer has to fight with his customer to get the money? Are > 800 subscribers to now be at the mercy of COCOTS just as people who > accept collect calls are at the mercy of the Alternate Operator Services > and whatever outrageous charges per minute they demand? PAT] I will stick to my self-imposed gag rule on arguing _whether_ cocots should have the right to collect money for 800. I will note that this development, regardless of what I or anybody else in this ngewsgroup thinks, is fairly likely, due to two underlying shifts: 1) Regulatory: The local telcos will be spinning off their own payphones to be accounted for separately, even if owned by the telco, so cross-subsidization will end. ALL PAYPHONES WILL BE COCOTS! This will increase the pressure for payment, as well increase the impact on society of "getting charged for 800". There is no longer a concept of "THE PHONE COMPANY", and this is precisely the point; you cannot rely on cross-subsidies. 2) Industry trends: More and more calls are becoming 800 calls, even if to CALL ATT. ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT 800 _WILL_BE_REIMBURSED, how should this be done? There are several NOT mutually exclusive possibilitie, here are three of them: 1) Caller pays with coin. This is easy and clean technically, and I hear that we are already seeing it in spots . (BTW, lots of countries with toll-free numbers have this system, you pay as for a local call but it is usually untimed.) The main problem is that this is often inconvenient if you do not have the right coins, and there are many semi-emergencies (e.g. car breakdown) that do not warrant calling 911, but you REALLY NEED A PHONE, you do not typically mind paying for it, but you may not have the coin. 2) Bill to 800 owner. Clearly, we have had enough scams, and having a COCOT owner being able to bill any amount is not reasonable, and would kill most 800, hardly an improvement, any more than killing most payphones. The best but technically trickiest fix would be to have each 800 owner allow or disallow charges (it could even be "charges up to x cents/min or x cents/call", but the likely solution is a fixed amount per call, say 35 cents). I do not know how hard this would be without segregating numbers per prefix or per area code (800 or 888 or whatever). Technology to the rescue! 3) Bill third party, credit card, home phone, whatever. The COCOT owner could post a special number (could be "0") where you negotiate this stuff with an operator or a computer. The owner could also allow you to use a telco credit card (or a bank/Amex credit card) to charge the 35 cents (or any other charges for that matter). To cover handling charges, the actual charge may have to be a little higher, even a dollar, but would you really mind if you need AAA and your car has broken down? Remeber, without reimbursement the alternative might well be that there was no payphone! Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ From: brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) Subject: Re: COCOT 800-Access Charges Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 03:13:36 GMT > I don't have a problem with this. But I _do_ have a problem with > payphones charging the _caller_ for 800 calls. The whole idea of 800 > (and now 888) service is that the caller doesn't need to pay! There > are several reasons for this: You have to pay for calls to 800 numbers made with your cellphone. Do you object to this also? > One, already mentioned, is convenience. If I want my daughter to be > able to call home from the swimming pool, a personal 800 number means > she doesn't need to carry a dime (excuse me -- a quarter (wait, it's > 35 cents (no, it's 50 cents))) to call home. Suppose your daughter is somewhere where there is no nearby pay phone? Certainly it would increase convenience for her, if, say, there were payphones within, say, 500 feet of every location. Should we pass a law requring pay phones be located every 500 feet, simply to increase convenience? > How about, let's say, a spousal abuse hotline? The old man just threw > her out on the street (literally) and she has no money at all. Yeah, > you could go with collect in this situation but 800 would be a lot > easier for the clients, and in this case that's important. How about > other hotlines; suicide prevention, for instance? Crimebusters? I agree that banning fees for 800 calls would be beneficial to victims of spousal abuse. But requiring pay phones every 500 feet would also be beneficial to victims of spousal abuse. Where do you draw the line? Is the convienience of the public always paramount to the ability of a business to make a profit? And even if you feel that it is: What if several COCOTS owners go out of business because of lack of revenue because they cannot charge for 800 service. That would certainly decrease convienience for people who can no longer make calls because the phone is going. Is it possible that result of banning fees for 800 numbers would cause a net decrease in convenience. (Or, if you prefer, the argument can be reversed -- isn't it possible that the increased proliferation of payphones as a result of allowing fees for calls to 800 numbers would provide a net increase in convienience?) > 800 has, since its inception, been sold to the general public as a > "free call". Now the rules are being changed. The rules changed when cellular came out. That was a long time ago. > As I said, I don't mind (much) having to pay extra for calls made to > my 800 number from a payphone. But it's not right (whatever _that_ > means) to make the caller pay for an 800 call. Ever. Including cell phones? Including overseas calls? Brett (brettf@netcom.com) Brett Frankenberger ------------------------------ From: joel@exc.com (Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: COCOT 800-Access Charges Date: 11 Dec 1996 15:19:39 GMT Organization: Excelsior Computer Services >> This does not, however, solve the underlying problems. I firmly >> believe that payphone operators have a right to be reimbursed for any >> service they provide (just like the rest of us). There are various > [...] > of us hadn't examined it, is that those "rules" were for _our_ benefit. This is the crux of the issue: is the US telephone network in place to help businesses make money or to help citizens communicate? If the former, then COCOT's have the right to charge what the market will bear. If the latter, then people have the right to 800 numbers. It's really as simple as that. My position (stated before in this forum) is that we are making a tremendous mistake in categorizing telephone service with, say, stereos. The country and its citizens have a right to, and a need for, communication. Joel (joel@exc.com) ------------------------------ From: bpurcell@centuryinter.net (Brian Purcell) Subject: Re: N11 Codes Date: Wed, 11 Dec 96 15:18:09 GMT Organization: Wide-Lite Mark J. Cuccia recently said: > Since the only real three-digit N11 code that has any REAL universal > assignment or reservation is 911(altho' some locations don't yet offer > 911 service), the codes 211 through 811 should be used as 'POTS' > central office codes." What about 411? On 12/8/96, Marty Tennant wrote: > Many people feel that N11 codes are "national treasures" and should > not be used for commercial purposes as BellSouth has regretably done. Couldn't agree more. The whole concept behind N11 codes was to provide a short, easy to remember number for special services (emergency, DA, repair, etc.). The idea of selling these off like BellSouth has done completely defeats the whole purpose of having the codes in the first place and should be banned. > Also, the General Services Administration would like one of the codes > as a generic means of calling the U.S. Government! Not sure that > would work. Many independent telcos use the codes for their business > office number. I thought that was what the toll-free number for the Federal Information Center was for. > In Texas, a proposal was floated awhile back to auction off one of the > N11 codes on a county-wide basis to ISPs for the provisioning of local > access to state and local Internet based information services. The > government access part would be free, but the winning bidder would be > able to charge for other information sources. Don't think this > concept went anywhere. You know, I live in Texas and I heard about the debate, but I never heard the outcome. I'll check with the PUC and see what happened. > I think President Clinton recently supported the use of another N11 > code as a non-emergency alternative to overloaded 911 centers. > Evidently, we have trained the public to call 911 when it really isn't > necessary. In this proposal, an N11 code would ring at the local > police office that handles regular non-emergency calls. I don't think > all the public assistance folks out there agree with this position, as > there would be confusion and an incredible public education effort. Yep, 311 was recently implemented in Baltimore as the non-emergency 911. > I do not support the use of N11 codes as central office prefixes, just > as I don't support their use in BellSouth territory as pay-per-use > information service numbers. I'm pretty sure that N11 codes *can't* be used as CO codes since it would difficult to program equipment to recognize only a few of the N11s as special service numbers and the others as CO codes. > I agree that they should be considered "national treasures" and should > be used for appropriate non-commercial purposes. These purposes may > not be evident at this time. Yes, as we've learned in recent years with NPAs, you never know what the future will bring. Brian Purcell bpurcell@centuryinter.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 10:56:45 -0800 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: N11 Codes Marty Tennant wrote: > Mark J. Cuccia recently said: >> "IMO, The N11 codes should have NEVER been used in the way some areas >> are now using them. Since the only real three-digit N11 code that has >> any REAL universal assignment or reservation is 911(altho' some >> locations don't yet offer 911 service), the codes 211 through 811 >> should be used as 'POTS' central office codes." > Esteemed readers, > This issue has been discussed in a still open docket at the FCC for > some time now. > Many people feel that N11 codes are "national treasures" and should > not be used for commercial purposes as BellSouth has regretably done. > In Canada and in Hawaii (GTE), N11 codes have been used for Telephone > Relay Service for TDD users. They argue for a uniform number to make > access for hearing impaired telephone users consistent across state > lines, rather than a mishmash of toll free numbers. > Also, the General Services Administration would like one of the codes > as a generic means of calling the U.S. Government! Not sure that > would work. Many independent telcos use the codes for their business > office number. If the US Federal Government wants a 'simple' or more 'generic' way of reaching its departments, offices, bureaus, etc. (hopefully toll-free) by the public -- the *citizenry* who *PAY* the salaries and bills of the government, *WHY* should a handful of the few 'national treasure' N11 codes be used? Doesn't the US Federal Government have its *OWN* Special Area Code, 710? AFAIK, there is only one 'working' number on 710, which is 710-NCS-GETS (710-627-4387). While there may also be a few more 'secret' seven-digit line-numbers not yet publicized, the 710 SAC could be used for up to almost eight-hundered possible central office NXX codes, each with a theoretical possible ten-thousand possible -xxxx line-numbers! That would allow a *FAR* bigger numbering space for reaching the departments of the Washington DC (District of Criminals?) central government, than would taking up any few other N11 codes! MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 09:24:10 -0800 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: Canadian Use Of N11 Codes Michael S. Craig wrote: > FYI, in Canada, there has been a consistent, albeit far from universal, > use of N11 codes for a variety of deemed-to-be *public* services: > 211 Not used > 311 Not used > 411 Directory Assistance (mirrors 1-NXX-555-12-12 ... used to be > local-only, now covers NPA) > 511 Not used (has been used for separation of TDD and TTY Relay Services) > 611 Telco Repair Service > 711 Relay Service (primary number: see 511 above) > 811 Telco Business Office (customer service) > 911 Emergency > This is far from universal in terms of everybody actually using the > codes, but at least the various provincial telcos have not put > contrary services in place at the end of these codes. In general, Cdn > telcos have taken a cooperative / consensus approach to N11 usage and > have not supported the commercialization of N11 services. This > position does acknowledge the existing / reasonable use of 611 and 811 > as *telco* access numbers. In mailings I receive from the CSCN (Canadian Steering Committee on Numbering), a 'Canada-specific' forum similar to the 'NANP-wide' INC (Industry Numbering Committee), 511 and 711 have been proposed or reserved or assigned to TDD/TTY 'relay' services, similar to the 800-855-1155 (or 800-855-xxxx) numbers. I don't remember which maps to which, but there are *two* N11 codes (511 and 711) for TDD/TTY 'relay' services for the Hearing-Impaired, as one N11 code answers at the relay center with a *modem* for hearing-impaired customers with a TDD/TTY calling out, and the other N11 code answers at the relay center with a voice operator (live human? automated?) for voice customers placing calls to TDD/TTY-abled hearing imparied customers. There is also discussion in the CSCN regarding Canadian use of 211 for 'interactive voice/information services' for the blind and print-handic ... er -- visually/print challenged. There are two different Canadian assistance or advocacy groups for the blind which have been in existance in Canada for many decades, which have proposed the use of 211 to the CSCN for this type of service. I would hope that if 'interactive voice/info services' using 211 in Canada were to be implemented, that the CRTC makes *absolutely sure* that it wouldn't become a 'commercialized PAY-PAY-PAY-per-call' service. At least the CRTC, Industry-Canada, etc. have prevented COCOTS and AOSlime from becoming active in Canada over the past twelve years, although the US based COCOT/AOSlime 'industry' has been trying. I still feel that N11 codes (except for 911) should be 'reclaimed' from their 'reserved' three-digit status in the NANP. Local Directory could become (NPA)-555-1212 instead of 411; in many areas local Repair and Business Office have been becoming toll-free seven-digit or 800/888 ten-digit numbers; any PAY-per-call numbers should be available *ONLY* on the 900 Special Area Code; and since most local switches in the NANP are ESS/Digital (i.e. they can handle 'custom calling' and CLASS features with *XX/11XX codes), localized test numbers (Ring-back, ANAC, etc) could become *standardized* NANP-wide with such *XX/11XX codes. Even local directory, repair, business office could become something like *411/11411, *611/11611, *811/11811 in the future. This is similar to the cellular's uses of *XXX-send codes. All N11 codes (except for 911) could then be available for POTS seven-digit assignments in POTS NPA's (N11-xxxx). 911 would remain 'sacred' as a three-digit code, although it too could also be permissively dialable as *911/11911. Maybe Bellcore-NANPA and the INC should look into revising the "Vertical Service Code (*XX) Assignments". MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Subject: Re: Canadian Use Of N11 Codes Date: 11 Dec 1996 21:36:12 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In article , Craig, Michael S. writes: > for example, ... 911 (and to a lesser extent the European 999 equivalent) > was routed to the operator to ensure the customer got *an answer* in the > absence of true 911-Emergency service. 999 is the older British code, NOT Europe-wide. (Example: Sweden uses 90 000.) Various countries have had each their own emergency number. European Union and possbly some non-EU countries in Europe are standardizing to 112, currently some countries are in the "permissive dialling" mode, eihter will work. Also, 112 will always work from a GSM phone in Europe (the cellswitch translates as necessary, and the GSM net and phone have been expediting the 112 since 1991, even with no subscription, no SIM card etc). Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ From: hirschd1@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: Area Code Splits - Why? Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 18:49:05 -0500 Organization: Netcom Eric Bohlman wrote: > Robert McMillin (rlm@netcom.com) wrote: >> Do you mean to force people to buy $100-200 worth of hardware if they >> want additional phone lines? How would the lines be delivered? >> Doesn't analog DID require a trunk bundle to be hauled to the >> customer? Who and in what manner is this to be paid for? > Assuming that the customer just needs several separate *numbers* > (rather than the ability to handle several *calls* at the same time), > $100-$200 would be less than the yearly cost of 5 or more lines. > I'm pretty sure that the protocol that's used to deliver Caller ID > information from the CO to the subscriber can be extended to handle > delivery of the number actually dialed (IIRC, there's a "type" field for > which CID is just one option). > I actually have a mini-version of this on my office line. I have > three numbers with distinctive ring patterns all coming into the same > line. One of them is my regular business number, one is my fax number > (my fax traffic is too low to justify having a separate line) and one > is pointed to by my 800 number (so when I get a voice call I can tell > if I'm paying for it). I use a $60 "Ring Decipher" box to split the > fax number from the voice numbers. > Another thing that could relieve number congestion: a lot of > residential customers get a line solely for modem use, and it's almost > always used purely for outgoing calls. Why should such a line need a > number at all? Why can't the LECs offer an "anonymous" outgoing-only > line? One reason is that the DOD line needs a number because the RBOC needs to update the Local Exchange Routing Guide (LERG) so that they or another carrier to whom the RBOC delivers the traffic can determine the jurisdictional nature of the call. Each NXX (first three digits of a seven digit phone number) is associated with a specific CO and is assigned a V&H coordinate. Keep in mind that even when you buy DID for a PBX at least one number is assigned to the end user. Another reason is E911. If the E911 database cannot determine where the call originates it poses a liability nightmare to the RBOC. Imagine soomeone calls 911 from the phone without a number and the E911 database cannot match it to a location and something happens to that end user, the RBOC is deep in liability hell. ------------------------------ Subject: Telecom History in Sweden Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 16:44:32 +0100 From: Sam Spens Clason Hello Pat, I'm writing a term paper on the evolution of telephones in Sweden. The perspective I'm putting on it is: What if there had been truly free competition. In the beginning Sweden had a very free policy with lots of private operators all over the country and after only a few years the number of telephones in Sweden was very high. In, by international comparison, small-town Stockholm the absolute number of telephones was greater than in Paris, London and Berlin by 1885. This evolution was then to some extent hampered by the government since the inter-urban phone calls were a threat to the (state owned) telegraph. The phases were: 1) The government was not interested; 2) The government saw it as a way to extend and promote the telegraph. A distributed telegraph office, in modern terminology; 3) Private LD, seen as a threat to the telegraph which "served all the country to the better of society" (have we heard that one before, I mean after that ); 4) Prohibiting private LD and building a state LD network (two years later) Buying the competition by refusing interterconnection and/or demanding outrageous fees for it. 5) *de facto* monopoly. It appears that the first networks used single-wire phones. The government telegraphy board required that all networks interconnecting to their local networks and long distance network must be *all* two-wire phones. The official version is that only then could the customers make long-distance calls with good quality. That and other levys (e.g. LD between cities with telegraph stations was much more expensive) forced the many community or private networks to sell their networks to the telegraphy board. It also appears that the telephone, switchboards etc for the two-line system laid the foundation for LM Ericsson. There can be three reasons for this: 1) Ericsson made better and cheaper phones (than Bell); 2) The telegraphy board were protectionistic; 3) There were very few brands of two-wire systems on the market since it wasn't a hit else were; I *guess* it is the later one, but I'm far from sure. What were the time perspectives in other countries for converting to two-line systems and can anyone please tell me if the difference for a long distance call over, say 600 km, really was that big. The time-perspective in my paper is 1881-1902, i.e. the introduction of public telephony by Stockholm Bell on September 1 1881 and the government (forced) acquisition of "Stockholm Public Telephone" (which successfully had out-manoeuvered and subsequently bought the Bell company). Sam PS I will make the paper available on the web. PPS Please respond by email (as well). http://www.nada.kth.se/~sam home +46 70 1234567 cell +46 70 7821022 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #660 ******************************