Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA23216; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 23:30:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 23:30:42 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199612310430.XAA23216@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #684 TELECOM Digest Mon, 30 Dec 96 23:30:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 684 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: How Business Almost Derailed the Net (Ronda Hauben) Re: New Area Codes (John Cropper) Re: Prepaid Phone Cards (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Bell Issuing Year-Long *Temporary* Numbers (Michael Chance) Re: AT&T Merlin Used Equipment Needed (Jeff Rauland) Re: Utah, 385, 435 and Possibilities (Linc Madison) 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: rh120@columbia.edu (Ronda Hauben) Subject: Re: How Business Almost Derailed the Net Date: 30 Dec 1996 17:57:51 GMT Organization: Columbia University > Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 10:09:40 -0800 (PST) > From: Nathan Newman > Subject: [ENODE] How Business Almost Rerailed the Net It seems there is a battle on, not quite that it is over, so it was a welcome event to see Nathan's article posted on comp.dcom.telecom > In a remarkable turn of societal imagination, many conservatives > have begun picturing the computer age as the rejuvenation of > small-scale entrepreneurial capitalism against the institutions of the > nation state. Whether it's Alvin Toffler "quantum revolution" or Newt It doesn't seem it is just the conservatives. It is also unfortunate that this is the image that the U.S. government (with the exception thus far of the federal court in Pa) is trying to convey. It is helpful that this article demonstrates that the mythology of so called "competition" is just a veneer for the actuality of unregulated conglomerates and monopolies trying to impose their view of the world and their products on an uncooperative public. But the more important fact that this all brings to light is that the Internet was created as a scientific, educational resource. As such it made possible the public participation needed to develop technology. I have begun to document this in a new piece of work I am doing applying Jurgen Habermas's notion of the need for a reemergence of the public sphere to the development of Usenet and the early ARPANET mailing lists. > Gingrich promoting decentralization of economic decision-making to > local regions, there has been a steady stream of conservative analysis > making the case that new technology has made government's role, > especially the federal government's role, irrelevant and even > dangerous to the healthy functioning of the economy. The development of new technology requires that government play its crucial role. My research about Usenet and the ARPANET mailing lists in the 1981-2 period (Usenet was formed in 1979 so this is fairly early in its development) shows that there were important debates and discussions on both early Usenet and on the ARPANET mailing lists carried on Usenet during this period which examined the different views of technology that the commercial world was promoting and that the scientific and technical community needed. For example, on the workstation mailing list FA.works there was a discussion of whether Xerox should offer a programming language with its new workstation. There was resistance from Xerox for offering a programming language as that was in conflict with the commercial control of its product, while those on the mailing list who were to be the users of the workstation discussed how the lack of a programming language would make the workstation useless to them. That they would need to be able to customize their uses of the workstation and not having a programming language would make their work impossible. Thru this kind of discussion and debate Xerox was won to recognize the need to offer a programming language. > Even THE ECONOMIST, a magazine with an early enthusiasm for the > Internet and usually a somewhat more balanced eye, has described the I haven't noticed the more balanced eye, but have instead felt the Economist has promoted the ideology of the so called "free market" for quite a while, but I haven't particularly followed its Internet coverage. > success of the Internet as the "triumph of the free market over > central planning. Democracy over dictatorship." The new conservative What is interesting is that democracy in the political realm needs some sort of check over corporate power in the political and economic realm. This is helpfully pointed out in Habermas's work. He shows how in the development of a political system there is a need to have debate and discussion over crucial issues and that this is what happened in the development of our current political forms in England, Germany and France. (And others have pointed out how this was true as well in the early days of the U.S.) However, Habermas shows how public relations firms have been hired by big corporate entities to put their narrow self interest out to the public as the public interest. The public debate and discussion over public issues is replaced by public relations ads from corporate entities who propose their ads as the news. Habermas points out how this use of the press by corporate entities has corrupted the press. And in a time of technological and scientific developments there is a special need for the public to be able to discuss public issues and questions to be able determine what will serve the public interest. With the development of Usenet and the early ARPANET mailing lists there was a reemergence of a public sphere where the public could discuss technological developments and determine what was needed for this to serve the public. Such discussions also helped the companies who were developing products as they could hear complaints when their products didn't meet the needs of the public. Unfortunately instead of recognizing and valuing this resource represented by early Usenet and the ARPANET mailing lists, corporations were eager to stop the criticism of their products and to substitute public relations for such criticism. Fortunately the Acceptible Use Policy (AUP) governing the ARPANET and therefore also the ARPANET mailing lists carried on Usenet forbid public relations activity and thus helped to nourish the development of a new public sphere. Clearly much of the corporate world has been eager to get rid of this prohibition against public relations activity on the Internet as they want to corrupt it with their public relations activity as they have much of the U.S. press. Therefore instead of encouraging any discussion and debate about what should happen with the Internet, much of the corporate world in the U.S. at least, is encouraging the Internet as a new means of consumerism. However, Usenet and the Internet make it possible for people to be citizens of their countries (i.e. to participate in the important public issues) and netizens (i.e. to participate in determining the affairs of the Net.) Therefore there is a need to understand and encourage the reemergence of the public sphere that mailing lists like comp.dcom.telecom and Usenet newsgroups make possible and to discuss and debate the future of the Internet, as is being begun by this thread. For those interested in these issues, the Netizens netbook which is online at http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook documents the scientific and academic foundations of the ARPANET and Usenet as the basis for the Internet. Government funding made this all possible, and there is much to learn from this to help to nourish the future development of the Internet. We welcome comments and discussion of the articles in the Netizens netbook. Ronda rh120@columbia.edu ronda@panix.com P.S. A draft of my work on applying Habermas's framework to understand early Usenet is available if anyone is interested. Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Re: New Area Codes Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 19:39:06 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com Derek wrote: > About a year or so ago, when additional area codes within the city of > Chicago were still in the planning stages, there was a debate whether > or not they were going to divide up the city geographically, or whether > they would just assign all NEW numbers the new area code, and leave all > existing numbers alone. This would mean that within city limits there > would be two (or more) area codes scattered all throughout. This would > have a tremendous advantage in that millions of people would not be > inconvenienced by their area code changing. I believe it also meant > that even if you were dialing a number across the street, you would > need to include the area code. Split proponents have used the 'mandatory ten-digit dialing' as a scare tactic, although the FCC would be well-advised to make such dialing mandatory to prevent such situations as will be present in Chicago (five codes in the area), Seattle (soon to be four codes in the area), LA (soon to be six codes), New York (soon to be seven codes), Miami (soon to be five code) ... and the list goes on. > The final decision was to go with the geographical boundaries. It seems > to me it would be a small price to pay to key in 4 extra digits for a > local number than to risk missed calls and missed business for millions > of people because their phone number changed. Splitting area codes has been the preferred method of relief since the NANP was implemented in 1951. While old habits die hard, some people (like Regina Costa of TURN, in California) REFUSE to let the concept of area code splits die without a fight. > Is there any city which uses this method of multiple area codes in a > geographical area? At the time the debate was a local debate. Has > this debate been raged in other cities? Have any adopted this method? In 1997, both of Maryland's area codes, and Pennsylvania's 412 will be overlaid, making them the second, third, and fourth such overlay codes behind New York's wireless 917 area code. Plans are under way by USWest to possibly overlay Phoenix (602), and Denver (303, 570 has been assigned for the relief plan there), and discussions will open regarding the disposition of Minneapolis/St. Paul's 612 in January. Bellsouth will be dicussing overlays for Atlanta's 404 and 770. Bell Atlantic is pushing them for 215, 610, and 717. NYNEX is pushing for Manhattan (212) to have another overlay code added. Finally, Canada is considering overlays for 416 and 514. 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://206.112.101.209/jcbt2n/lincs/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 10:14:33 -0800 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: Prepaid Phone Cards In TELECOM Digest (volume 16, issue 683), our moderator mentions to Tad Cook's article on Prepaid Phone Card Scams: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Interesting that AT&T was one of the > companies fined for poor performance in this area when considering > the marketing push they are making at this time according to the > earlier article in this issue by Mark Cuccia. PAT] The prepaid phone card (with 100-units of calling time) that AT&T sent me in their marketing promotion is a "free gift" I received from them, and I do appreciate it! It does have AT&T's logo on the front and back of the card. On the front, it says "AT&T Personal Account Service - AT&T Prepaid Card - 100 Units". The back of the card mentions an 800 number for the AT&T Prepaid Card Customer Service. BTW, there is *no* magnetic stripe on the back of this AT&T Prepaid Phone Card. Also, the back of the card mentions that the card expires on 12/31/97 (next year), but I'll probably expire the card before then (maybe 31 December *this* year), as I've already used up most of the card, now with only 7-units remaining! As for me, when it comes to prepaid phone cards, I would *never* actually choose to *pay money to buy* such a card. I consider the card that I received from AT&T to be a *gift*, which the promotional material which came with the card refers to it as. I *do* continue to have various 'traditional' *credit* account calling cards from AT&T and BellSouth, and even similar cards associated with an MCI account I still have (but use only from time-to-time). While some of these 'other' prepaid phone cards might actually *utilize* the services of the AT&T long distance network as the carrier (or MCI, Sprint, GTE, etc.), is AT&T's name or logo printed on the card? If it is, has AT&T *authorized* the use of their logo? If AT&T's *name* (but maybe *not* the trademarked logo) is indicated on the card 'as the carrier' which actually *connects* the calls, the *provider* of the prepaid card service is actually *reselling* the services of AT&T's long distance network. It could be that AT&T isn't really 'at fault' here ... rather the 'middleman' which provides such cards to the public (the prepaid card's indicated *service-provider* but not 'telco carrier' *nor* the store merchant) could really be the one at fault. The prepaid card I received in the mail (and it is a "free gift") actually *came* from AT&T, with AT&T's name and logo on both sides of the card. And the recorded voice greetings and menus when the 800 access number is dialed are those of AT&T, not some 'middleman' prepaid phone card provider. BTW, in my earlier article on these AT&T Prepaid cards, I mentioned the "rate schedule" of how many units-per-minute are deducted for calls to particular locations outside of North America. I mentioned 3-units for calls to the UK, but I forgot to include (the rest of) Europe, which deducts 4-units-per-minute. Also there is no indication of units-per-minute deducted for Africa on the original "rate/unit schedule" provided by AT&T. Since Asia/Pacific is 5-units-per-minute deducted, I *assume* that the same number of units are deducted for calls to Africa. As for the actual *length* of a 'minute', I didn't actually time the calls to see if I were 'short-changed' or if I was getting the full amount of a minute for my 'unit(s)'. But remember that with most carriers, through various different billing methods/services, you are charged for a full minute whenever you *begin* a new minute of conversation, even if you talk for only a fraction of a minute. i.e., if you place a call which is only 15 seconds total, you are charged for one full minute; if you talk for 20 minutes and 10 seconds, you are charged for 21 minutes, as you entered 'into' the 21st minute, since you *continued* the conversation after you finished 20 full minutes of talk time. Of course, some carriers do offer six-second billing periods with some services. Finally, many carriers and operator service providers (whether 'legit' traditional telcos/IXC's or the AOSlime) accept 'commercial' credit card numbers for billing (Visa, AmEx, MasterCard, etc). These days, even AT&T accepts such cards when you get the 'bong' tone: "Please enter your card number and PIN -- *OR* major credit card number and the four digit expiration date, now". However, my understanding is that billing telephone calls to such cards, even when handled by AT&T, can result in surcharges and the like which are *much* higher than AT&T's tariffed calling card rates! 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: Michael Chance Subject: Re: Bell Issuing Year-Long *Temporary* Numbers Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 09:25:12 CST Andrew B. Hawthorn wrote: > I recently moved from Atlanta to Houston and became a Southwestern > Bell customer. When I contacted Southwestern Bell to set up my > residential service, they assigned me two phone numbers that were in > NPA 281 (which recently split from 713), despite being well inside > Beltway 8, the approximate boundary for the geographic split. The > SWBT representative told me that all of the 713 numbers in my area had > been taken and that I would have to be assigned a 281 area code > number. It's not so much the annoyance of 10-digit dialing to old > neighbors and 7-digit dialing to new neighbors that gets me; rather, > it's the absurd fact that SWBT is changing my NPA *and* prefix within > a year. [ SWBT letter deleted ] > I can't find any records that indicate that there is a 713-290-XXXX > exchange. Why couldn't they create one so that new customers could > have a 713 number and wouldn't have to change their area code or > prefix? I find it terribly inconceivable that they are totally out of > 713 numbers in my area. Are they conserving these numbers? Unfortunately, you've gotten caught up in the results of the Texas PUC's waffling between an overlay and a geographic split of NPA 713 this past year. The Texas PUC originally approved NPA 281 as an overlay on the rapidly exhausting NPA 713, and SWBT and the various wireless carriers got approval to start issuing new numbers with 281 numbers in advance of resolving the technical issues of a landline overlay. Then a number of protests from various quarters *against* the overlay were registered, and the PUC re-opened their decision, resulting in a number of additional public hearings and numerous delays and they swung back and for between the various competing proposals. But before they made the _final_ decision in favor of an split, several landline wirecenters had completely exhausted their 713 number ranges, and had even scavanged all of the available numbers from adjacent wirecenters, as well. So, a number of 281-NXX ranges were opened, on both sides of the final split line. You just happen to be on the 713 side of the line, and live in one of these areas. There was some "pre-split" re-alignment work that was done in August, as well, and the final re-alignment work (including your phone number) will occur once the permissive dialing period ends, and each NPA is free to use the duplicated NXX ranges that are now one the "wrong" side of the split line. Incidentally, there is a 713-290 NXX. It's part of the 713-681 (Houston OVerland) wirecenter. Your 281-290 number is part of the 713-781 (Houston SUnset) wirecenter, hence the need for re-alignment. Michael A. Chance FIRST Support Team Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., St. Louis, Missouri Tel.: (314) 235-4119 Email: mc307a@helios.sbc.com ------------------------------ From: jrauland@investec9.com (Jeff Rauland) Subject: Re: AT&T Merlin Used Equipment Needed Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 19:27:49 GMT Organization: Alpha.net -- Milwaukee, WI On Wed, 25 Dec 1996 17:21:44 -0400, in comp.dcom.telecom is written: > So, is there a central clearing house for used Merlin equipment (cpus, > extensions, etc) that an individual can buy from? Thanks in advance to > anyone who can recommend a particular system, and where to get it at a > reasonable price! There is -- ACR Telecom -- we can get you any telecom equipment you want at great savings -- new or refurbished -- with a warranty. We also want to buy used phone systems -- working or not -- so if you know of anyone that's got one to sell, please let them know about us. I just got a bunch of Merlin equipment -- please check out my posting (Update: Telecom Gear For Sale) on Usenet -- there's an equipment list there. If you want 20 extensions, the smallest KSU you could go with would be an 820, maxed out for 8 lines/20 stations. I've got a bunch of 5-button and 10-button phones (standard), some HFAI-10's (hands-free), and some BIS-10's (speakerphones). I've also got two 34-button speaker phones, two 34-button deluxe phones and two Busy Line Fields (shows which extensions are busy). I might be able to sell you a 1030 cabinet, configured whatever way you want it, but I'll have to wait a day or two, because I had already proposed selling it to my brother-in-law -- if he says "no", you can have your choice. The stuff I have on hand I have taken in trade; thus its not refurbished and has no warranty. However, I can get you refurbished Merlin equipment real cheap (not as cheap as the equip. I've got), that all looks as new as the day it was manufactured, and has a one-year warranty. If you want to pay a little more, I think I can get some Merlin equipment that comes with a three-year warranty. ATT Merlin 1030 Cabinet 1 $150 3070 Expansion Cabinet 1 $125 Feature Module 4 1 $90 SMDR Module 1 $35 Service Module 1 $55 CO Modules 5 $95 10-Station Modules 5 $95 820 KSU (2x5) 4 $125 2x5 Modules 12 $25 0x5 Module 1 $20 2x0 Module 1 $20 410 KSU's 2 $95 Feature Pak II 4 $100 Feature Pak I 1 $35 Page/BGM/MOH Module 1 $35 5-button phones 27 $45 10-button standard phones 26 $60 HFAI 10 2 $70 BIS 10 6 $75 SP 34 3 $60 34 Deluxe 3 $65 H8D2C Consoles 2 $75 For what you want to do, this is what I'd recommend: 1 820 KSU $125 3 2x5 Modules $ 75 1 Feature Pak II $100 1 MOH Module $ 35 (music on hold/bkgrd music) 3 SP 34 Phones $195 17 5-button Phones $765 ======== $1,295 + Shipping ** Please note that the above items have not been refurbished -- I will guarantee not DOA, but they are offered for sale "as-is", with no warratny. For more information, please call Amy or Jeff at: (800) 576-1309 Thanks, Jeff Rauland ACR Telecom ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Utah, 385, 435 and Possibilities Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 13:12:21 -0800 In article , psyber@mindspring.com wrote: > [ ...analysis of the possibility of using 385 or 435 as a relief NPA in > various USWest states ...] > As for Utah itself, no adjacent state has an NXX 385 or 435 that would > be a 7D FNPA local call from Utah. ... I predict a coin flip, or perhaps > an old native legend to offer guidance in choosing the code. :-) > Given the above factors and conditions, the code not chosen by Utah > stands an excellent chance of being used for New Mexico in 1999 (give > or take a year). Based on the highly-unscientific technique of looking at what each area code potentially SPELLS, I'd predict that Utah will take 385 and leave 435 for somebody else. Otherwise, 1/8 of the population of rural Utah will be consigned to live in HEL-L, with another 1/8 needing HEL-P... (435-5xx-xxxx or 7xx-xxxx) We could even put the "Manson Family" behind a PBX at 435-837-7535 x837 (left as an exercise for the reader). Of course, if those folks don't end up in HELL, then life will just be DULL*, I guess. On the other hand, there's a town that I'm sure would be happy to have 435-737-8824 as its city switchboard number. * Yes, I know it also spells FULL, but DULL makes a better punch line. Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #684 ******************************