Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA21019; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 08:23:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 08:23:02 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199612171323.IAA21019@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #667 TELECOM Digest Tue, 17 Dec 96 08:23:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 667 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Ethernet Over Power Lines (toolbox@ibm.net) Re: Ethernet Over Power Lines (Curtis R. Anderson) Re: Yet Another PAY-per-Call (North Coast Communications) Re: Yet Another PAY-per-Call (was Re: Further Notes on 555) (Clive Feather) Re: Yet Another PAY-per-Call (Nils Andersson) Re: Yet Another PAY-per-Call (Ray Rikansrud) Re: Canadian Use Of N11 Codes (Stanley Cline) Heartline Service SUSPENDED in California! (John Cropper) Re: COCOT 800-Access Charges (Dave Levenson) $911 Air Ticket (Mark Brader) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: toolbox@ibm.net Subject: Re: Ethernet Over Power Lines Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 01:41:36 GMT Organization: Nut Screws and Bolts - Film at 11 Reply-To: toolbox@ibm.net Around 12 Dec 96 05:21:09 GMT, Greg Stahl wrote: > DataComm over power lines is used in alot of different places. One > that I am aware is the mass transit subway system in Washington, D.C. > called Metro. Although I cannot describe the details, the trains are > powered by a "third rail" that carries 380 volts (I could be wrong > about the voltage). [snip] I can't really believe this. What I do know about the Washington, DC, Metro system is that they have full radio communications for Metro Police and the maintenance personnel, and they communicate via two-way radio. You can see the repeaters at regular intervals in the tunnels; and closer if there's a bend in the tunnel they look like two square fins on the walls of the tunnels. Although not the same thing, there is also full-coverage from one of the cellular carriers (I think Cellular One). They use two thick white cables: one transmits and one receives. You can see the name on the insulation if you look hard enough. For the stations there are these suspicious-looking finned panels on the ceilings in obvious locations. But as far as communications via the third rail, I find that very hard to believe since radio communications is pervasive in the tunnels *and* the train car sensors between the rails are frequent enough that they could be used themselves as the means of communications. But I'm just a rider and casual observer of Metro, so what do I know? toolbox@ibm.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 01:54:27 -0500 From: Curtis R. Anderson Organization: Gleepy's Henhouse Subject: Re: Ethernet Over Power Lines Tim Dillman wrote: > I recently visited one of my customers to discuss future technologies > and he brought up the wildest idea I have heard yet. It seems that > the public utilities are using power lines as the transmission media > for internal ethernet transmissions (or so he said). I was very > skeptical about this notion but managed a smile and nod when my > customer told me of this, but sill I wonder ... > ... Can anyone confirm or dispel this idea? Out here in this part of New York state, the power company, Steuben Rural Electric Cooperative (SREC), installed a Load Management Unit to shut off major appliances (such as an electric water heater in an all-electric home) during peak periods. "Peak periods" would be defined as those times when the farmers are milking the cows or during the hottest summer days when heavy air conditioning use is anticipated. The load management unit installed to control the house's water heater is a QEI, Inc. model 8135. A power company tech wrote "32" in the Group Address box. Three poles away toward the substation is a lone transformer with a box attached to the transformer's secondary. This might be some kind of signaling amplifier for the two houses down the line from it, each on its own transformer. No capacitors appear to be installed on the transformers, but SREC uses a common neutral for primary and secondary in what might be called a three phase/four wire system. A small capacitor might be built into the transformer, though. At least SREC is nice enough to give a two dollar credit per month for each LMU! If there is enough interest, I'll take a picture of the LMU and make it available through anonymous FTP. Digital cameras are so much fun. :-) Curtis R. Anderson, Co-creator of "Gleepy the Hen", SP 2.5?, KoX URLs: http://www.servtech.com/public/cra/ | XENU: All that needs ftp://ftp.servtech.com/pub/users/cra/ | to be said! mailto:gleepy@intelligencia.com | ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Dec 96 12:11 EST From: North Coast Communications <0005082894@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Yet Another PAY-per-Call Speaking of misleading ... In the {Chicago Sun-Times}, ads for calls to 1-664-410-XXXX ^^^ ^^^ are advertised (in fine print of course), "normal ld rates to MO apply". ^^ What are we supposed to assume? That these calls are to MISSOURI??!!! **** In checking classifieds from many newspapers & magazines nationwide, "410" seems to be the only prefix used in 664 for this purpose. Which leads me to wonder if this is a "special" prefix, not reachable by callers on Montserrat. "404" seens to serve a similiar purpose in 268. As does "704" in 941 (FL). I am interested in similiar NPA/NXX combinations used this way for a "Hot" list that I am compiling. ---------- A few years back there were Party Lines and such in the 515 NPA. These were run by the Jefferson Telephone Company in their 386 (adv. "FUN) prefix. They were all located in the 6XXX series, which was not reachable from other 386 numbers (calls dialed from that town would reach a fast busy). This proved so lucrative that they opened a 945 prefix specifically from that purpose. Again, though 945 was listed "Jefferson IA", there was no way you could call FROM Jefferson. Only calls from outside the one prefix dialing area (386) were accepted. I went to Jefferson IA on a road trip to investigate this. Jefferson Telephone was a "family-owned business" and the people in town had no idea what was going on right under the noses. In fact, when I spoke with the county sheriff (Jefferson is the county seat), he informed me he had heard "rumors", but when he dialed the numbers in question all he got was a busy signal. Of course I set him, other county officials, (and a few local preachers) straight in the whole matter! :+) Heh Heh ... The president of Jefferson Telephone was NOT pleased when I finally caught up with him to ask for an interview! Had a lot of "FUN" with that one! Michael Fumich ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:43:42 +0000 From: Clive D.W. Feather Reply-To: clive@demon.net Subject: Re: Yet Another PAY-per-Call (was Re: Further Notes on Use of 555) Organization: Clive's laptop (part of Demon Internet Ltd.) In Digest 16.658 I wrote: >> Over the past few years, we've seen International PAY-per-call scams, some >> in the NANP Caribbean, and some to numbers (but not necessarily locations) >> outside of the NANP. > I don't see how you can class these as scams. With the +1 809 and non- > NANP numbers, you pay *exactly* the same as a call to a "genuine" > number in that area. Provided it's clearly presented as an > international call the way a genuine call would be presented, what's > the problem? The number of responses I've received show that I didn't make myself clear, so I hope Pat will let me make a clarification. I know that these numbers are often presented in a misleading manner. That's clearly a scam, and I dislike it as much as anyone else. However, the original posting appeared to object to the entire concept of using foreign numbers and revenue sharing at all, and I read it as calling that process a scam. If a number is clearly presented in the normal format (no playing around with funny punctuation or prefixes), and it is clear that it is charged as an international call at the same rate as all other calls to that country (i.e. no forwarding to 900 numbers or anything like that), then I see it as perfectly legitimate for the callee to receive revenue from the telco, or to divert the call to another location that's cheaper to call, or whatever. Hopefully we can now close this topic. Clive D.W. Feather | Associate Director | Director Tel: +44 181 371 1138 | Demon Internet Ltd. | CityScape Internet Services Ltd. Fax: +44 181 371 1150 | | Written on my laptop - please reply to the Reply-To address ------------------------------ From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nilsphone) Subject: Re: Yet Another PAY-per-Call Date: 16 Dec 1996 07:12:17 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com > That way our companies and corps that do not make international calls > can block the 976s and look alikes, the 900s and the 011 and the > telcom managers can avoid at least one staff meeting a week. The NANP will probably stand. What the company telco manager can do: 1) Block 809 if necessary, and the other Caribean/etc area codes as necessary. (You probably do not want to block calls to Canada). 2) Block 10xxx dialling. The company that pays the bill has the right to choose the carrier. Period. What the local Telcos should do, possibly aided by the FCC etc: 3) Disallow backcharges to the caller on any but 900/976 calls that the caller should KNOW are surcharged, and which, unlike 011 calls, are blocked by the 900 block. 4) Allow BLOCKING of 10xxx calls!!! This may be an original idea of mine. What we all should do, including the above entities: 5) Raise public awareness about scams, particularly the 10xxx-011 variety with kickbacks, this one was new to me, I must admit. Pretty nasty, but clever! Questions: Should 10xxx+011 with kickbacks be allowed? Can they be disallowed? Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ From: Ray Rikansrud Subject: Re: Yet Another PAY-per-Call Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 15:13:09 -0800 Organization: University of Washington That is actually kind of funny. The name of the Teleslime that is: Telecon Communications Corporation (yes that's an n, not an m) -Ray On 12 Dec 1996, Garrett Wollman wrote: > 101-051-801-144-181-371-1138 > > (10518/101-0518 is one of the AOSlime these lot get, or have in the > past gotten, kickbacks from). ------------------------------ From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Canadian Use Of N11 Codes Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 02:02:35 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 09:24:10 -0800, Mark Cuccia wrote: > (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. Another related proposal: Reserve a N11 code (or some other standardized code) for *TDD/TTY* users to reach the local emergency agency. In most areas, the TDD/TTY number for "911" is a standard POTS number, which is *not* standard from one community to the next. In my town (Ft. Oglethorpe, GA) the number is 706-861-xxxx; In Chattanooga, TN, the number is 423-629-xxxx; Why not have it some standard code? A question: I know 800-855 was reserved for TDD/TTY services. But why didn't the various state relay services locate in 800-855, *instead* of the mishmash of other numbers? For example, the Georgia relay service numbers are: 1-800-255-0135 and 1-800-255-0056 and the Tennessee numbers are: 1-800-848-0298 and 1-800-848-0299 It's bad enough trying to remember which number is voice and the other TDD/TTY! ** Notes on relay services: ** Originally, the state relay services would only complete calls that both *originated and terminated* in the same state (aside from 800 numbers, etc. which were normally always reachable.) For local calling areas that span states, such as the Chattanooga/north Georgia area, this meant that part of the local calling area was unreachable through a relay service. Since that time, most relay services have expanded to allow interstate calls; only *one* point has to be in the state that sponsors the relay service. (For example, to call a Tennessee hearing-impaired customer from my house in Georgia, I can call either the Georgia *or* Tennessee relay services.) Most relay services are still tied closely to AT&T, mainly because AT&T often provides the long distance for the relay service, or *the relay service itself.* For example, the vast majority of relay services will still accept only LEC or AT&T calling cards for non-1+ calls (from payphones, etc.) and calls are billed at AT&T rates, through AT&T's billing system. (If I recall correctly, MCI has its own relay service -- "TeleRelay" -- but no other IXCs do; they didn't require the stilted "go ahead" conversation that the AT&T-based services do.) > N11 code answers at the relay center with a voice operator (live > human? automated?) for voice customers placing calls to TDD/TTY-abled They're humans. SomeONE has to type the voice person's words into the TDD! *Good* voice recognition still isn't here yet. :( ** end relay service notes ** > There is also discussion in the CSCN regarding Canadian use of 211 for > 'interactive voice/information services' for the blind and > become a 'commercialized PAY-PAY-PAY-per-call' service. At least the > CRTC, Industry-Canada, etc. have prevented COCOTS and AOSlime from At least there *aren't* COCOTs in Canada! Most COCOTs use 211 for refund/repair! > and Business Office have been becoming toll-free seven-digit or > 800/888 ten-digit numbers; any PAY-per-call numbers should be PacBell uses the "811" prefix for the telco business office, etc. Why not establish a standard prefix for telco business office/repair/etc., and force all telcos to use that standard, instead of having the mess of 811 [PB]/N11 [independents]/557 [BellSouth]/780 [BellSouth]/800/888 numbers that exist now? For example: 811-2311 ANAC (derived from 311, used in many DMS switches for ANAC) 811-2611 repair (derived from 611) 811-2411 optional, for local DA or reverse-search service (411) 811-2000 residential customer service etc. > with such *XX/11XX codes. Even local directory, repair, business > office could become something like *411/11411, *611/11611, *811/11811 At least with *61x and *81x, these run right up against the established "call selector" codes. > 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 Cellular switches aren't as bound to 10-digit/*xx [fixed-length-number] translations as landline switches are. For example, in various cellular systems, there are all sorts of * codes of varying lengths: *data modem pool (more or less standard code) *help road service (GTE Mobilnet Chattanooga and other cities) *18 activate follow-me roaming (B-side carriers) *350 activate NACN (A-side carriers) *phone automated phone users guide (GTE Mobilnet Tampa) etc. The SEND key acts as a "number terminator", so requiring timeouts, etc. is not an issue on cellular. Implementing new "standard" * codes, at least in the *5x-*8x range, would result in disrupting codes for CLASS and other optional services; I don't know that varying-length * codes could be implemented well in a landline environment, as timeouts, the # key, etc. would have to be used to signal the end of the number! (If all codes were a SINGLE length, this would not be an issue.) Instead of using *6x/*8x for CLASS services, something like this could be used: *441 =3D activate feature *440 =3D deactivate feature Just opening the two-digit *xx dialing pattern to *xxx would allow for 10 times (if 0 and 1 are allowed as leading digits, no reason I can think of not to) more numbers in the same space. (The "end-with-0-to-deactivate-or-activate" convention is common in the cellular network. For example, some carriers use *73 to activate no-answer transfer, and *730 to deactivate it. NACN uses the reverse [*35 to DEACTIVATE NACN call delivery, *350 to activate], which I have never figured out. Since the issue here is varying-length numbers, use *731 for activation of the feature.) > seven-digit assignments in POTS NPA's (N11-xxxx). 911 would remain > 'sacred' as a three-digit code, although it too could also be I don't think 911 can *ever* be reclaimed for *any* purpose. The implementation of 112 as a "permissible" dialing code for 911, at least from GSM PCS (to allow GSM users from abroad, using their SIM card in a North American GSM phone, to use the same code for an "emergency" number), should be considered. (Are any of the US GSM systems allowing 112 as an alternate for 911 now?) Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! mailto:roamer1@pobox.com ** http://pobox.com/~roamer1/ CompuServe 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1 All opinions are strictly my own! ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Heartline Service SUSPENDED in California! Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 18:30:11 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com An item from the CPUC I thought you'd ALL find very interesting ... CONTACT: Kyle DeVine December 9, 1996 CPUC - 563 213-897-4225 (I.96-04-024) CPUC ORDERS HEARTLINE AND TNT TO REFUND $600,000 TO CUSTOMERS FOR SLAMMING AND SUSPENDS SERVICE FOR 40 MONTHS The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) today approved a settlement proposed by its Consumer Services Division (CSD), Heartline Communications, Inc. (Heartline) and Total National Telecommunications, Inc. (TNT) which settles the CPUC investigation of allegations that Heartline and TNT switched consumers to their long distance service without consumers' consent - a practice known as slamming. Under the terms of the settlement, Heartline and TNT cannot provide retail long distance service to customers in California for 40 months. The companies also must offer $600,000 in refunds in the form of $20 checks to each of the 32,000 California customers who complained that their long distance service was slammed by TNT or Heartline. The agreement lays out a claim process for customers who claim losses greater than $20. Customers that currently have TNT as their long distance service provider will be notified in the next few months that they will need to switch to another carrier. Until they switch, consumers will not be billed excessive rates by TNT because the company has reduced its toll rates in California to levels charged by AT&T. The CSD initial investigation indicated consumers had been slammed as a result of signing a sweepstakes entry form. CSD alleged that some consumer signatures had been forged. The investigation also found that Hispanic neighborhoods were targeted with false offers of discount long distance service when Heartline and TNT charged significantly higher rates than the major long distance carriers. -more- After reviewing staff's initial investigation in April, the Commission ordered Heartline and TNT to respond to slamming allegations in formal hearings and prohibited them from contacting local exchange companies directly to switch any more customers to their service. The Commission also prohibited selling their customer subscriptions to other entities. The Commission approved the settlement because it is reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with the law, and in the public interest. It settles the investigation without long and expensive litigation. It also provides immediate refunds to the 32,000 consumers who called Pacific Bell, GTE of California, or the Commission to complain that their service had been switched without their authorization. -###- John Cropper voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 LINCS 609.637.9434 PO Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 mailto:psyber@mindspring.com http://www.the-server.com/jcbt2n/lincs/ ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: COCOT 800-Access Charges Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 13:49:07 GMT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you are going to pass along the > COCOT 'surcharge' to the owner of the 800 number, what do you do in > cases where an 800 subscriber has a deal with his carrier to pay > just X cents per minute? The carrier will probably pass the increase in its costs along, either to the specific subscriber, or to all of its subscribers. Remember, however, that when the carrier became liable for the payphone set use fee, it also began paying reduced CCL charges, as the LEC payphones are removed from the rate base. The carrier will see lower CCL charges, and increased set use fees ... probably a slight overall increase in its overhead. > He says if the carrier is going to surcharge him for calls coming > from COCOTS, *then do not pass those calls on to him*. The carrier has the right, under the regulations, to block 800 calls from payphones. Note that the regulation is not limited to COCOT payphones. Compensation to payphone owners applies to _ALL_ calls from payphones, regardless of whether the owner is a COCOT provider or the deregulated payphone business owned by an RBOC. > What then prevents the COCOT owner from raising the 'surcharge' to a > dollar or two dollars, as long as he no longer has to fight with his > customer to get the money? The set-use fee is now $45.85 per month regardless of the number of calls. As of 9/1/97 it becomes $0.35 per call. This amount is set by the FCC. As of 9/1/98 it becomes the initial deposit amount for local calls at the payphone. It is not an arbitrary amount. A payphone which imposes an arbitrarily high fee for local coin calls will probably not stay in business very long! Jay R. Ashworth (jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us) writes: > Ok, admittedly, they may have a financially sound motivation for this > desire, although I'd be _really_ surprised if there was a good > justification for their not noticing for _13_ years ... Over the past 13 years, the volume of 800 traffic has increased from 4% of the traffic to 24% of the traffic. (Why do you think we have run out of 800 numbers?) When the users getting a free ride on the payphone become that high a fraction, they _did_ get noticed. That it took this many years to fix the problem is not because nobody noticed it ... but that governmental action normally proceeds at a rather stately pace! > The "rule" I'm discussing is the implied contract that Dave feels that > he, and his daughter at swim practice, have with "the telephone > company". For many, _many_ years, it has been possible to place a > call to a "so-called" toll-free number, without needing to carry any > money, and many, _many_ customers have taken advantage of this > capability. That has not changed. The payphone compensation is paid to the payphone operator (LEC or COCOT-owner) by the carrier, not by the caller. There is still no need to carry change to make calls to 800 numbers! Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: msb@sq.com Date: Mon, 16 Dec 96 17:39:34 EST From: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: $911 Air Ticket Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 22:39:26 GMT This item appeared in the Daily Bulletin for November 26 from last month's North American Bridge Championships tournament. The Bulletin is edited by Henry Francis and Brent Manley and can currently be found under the American Contract Bridge League web site . =========================================================== $911 for air ticket? Mike Aliotta called his travel agency recently to arrange for some airline tickets. Even before he could tell the agent where he wanted to go, the agent told him, "Yes, we can take care of that for you. The price will be $911. And please come by now to pick them up." Aliotta knew something was wrong -- he hadn't said where he was going, the price was out of sight and they always delivered the tickets to him. $911? He thanked the agent, hung up and quickly dialed 911. Shortly afterwards the police broke into the travel agency and arrested the person who was holding the employees at gunpoint and threatening to dismember them. ==================================================== Forwarded here by: Mark Brader, msb@sq.com, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #667 ******************************