Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id BAA11269; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 01:02:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 01:02:03 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199612090602.BAA11269@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #654 TELECOM Digest Mon, 9 Dec 96 01:02:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 654 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Payphone Prices for 0+ and 800/888 (Michael Mantel) Re: Area Code Woes (Hillary Gorman) Re: Connecting Non-PBX Line Powered Equipment PBX Line (Barton F. Bruce) Re: COCOT 800-Access Charges (Barry F. Margolius) Re: COCOTs and 800 Numbers (edongp@aol.com) N11 Codes (Marty Tennant) Replacing a Cell Phone (Yigal Arens) Competing Local Telecom Providers: How's it Work? (Shawn Barnhart) Re: Ethernet Over Power Lines (Joe Jensen) Re: Ethernet Over Power Lines (Henry J. Becker) Wanted: AUDIOVox/Spectrum Cellular Interface (Jeffrey Race) Calling a Spammer Collect? (Lisa Hancock) Win95 and Areacode Overlays (Christopher Wolf) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 13:25:00 -0800 From: Michael Mantel Reply-To: mantel@hypersurf.com Subject: Re: Payphone Prices for 0+ and 800/888 dave@westmark.com wrote: > ...The local exchange carriers will be required to operate their > public telephones through unregulated, unsubsidized entities. With > this change, virtually all payphones will be required to pay their > own way, without subsidies from regulated ratepayers. I question how common it was for LECs to claim that their payphones (taken as a whole) were operated at a loss. Even if they did, it would be pretty much an accounting fiction, because so much of the costs of operating a telephone network are fixed costs... so the amount charged per line, per call, or per minute is pretty arbitrary. On the contrary, it seems likely that prior to the introduction of "competition" into the payphone business, payphones would have been helping to keep local phone rates down. I would like to know who has benefited from COCOTs. The LECs have lost revenue and the public pays more for poorer service. The people who benefit are the COCOT marketers and operators, and perhaps the businesses that get a commission for having COCOTs on their premises. The premise behind deregulating things is that the customers of the service will have an opportunity to choose the best provider of the service, but this doesn't work with pay phones. When you are at a mall or an airport, your only choices are to use the single service provider available or not to make the call. I =thought= the FCC was supposed to operate in the public interest, but I notice that the public interest doesn't get much representation when the FCC holds hearings. Instead, you have the LECs and the IXCs and the COCOT operators battling it out, and they are not worried about the public interest. The ridiculous thing is that the FCC expresses concern in its opinions that some companies may be adverse- ly impacted by rule changes or by other changes ... so what? Nobody promised the cable companies they would have a permanent monopoly (though it looked like they would), and nobody has promised the COCOT operators that things will stay the same forever. Here's my hypothetical question ... when I go to the airport today, AT&T already has their own phones there. Now AT&T will have a reason to encourage their customers to use the AT&T phones, thereby avoiding the surcharges on 800 calls. Can we expect more carriers to begin offering their own phones, and at more places? Unless the FCC is requiring the IXCs to do separate accounting for payphone services, my guess is that they are going to begin more seriously competing with the existing COCOT operators for this business, and lots of COCOT operators will be out of business in five years as a result of these new rules. Good riddance! Eli Mantel ------------------------------ From: hillary@netaxs.com (Hillary Gorman) Subject: Re: Area Code Woes Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 17:27:36 -0500 Organization: Packet Shredders Anonymous In article , genie@panix.com wrote: > In Joel Upchurch bellsouth.net> writes: >> I suspect that there may be real world financial consequences, such >> as loan elgibility or insurance rates that could be effected by >> living in an 'undesirable' zip code. > Insurance companies and underwriters use the ZIP+4 and TIGER Census > data, along with their own claims experience, and the Equifax > insurance claims clearinghouse database, to segment their insurance to Recently near Philadelphia, one of the suburbs (I think Elkins Park, maybe Melrose Park, not sure) fought and won to have their zip code changed from one that was shared with part of the City of Philadelphia to a "suburban" zip code. When the zip code changed, my friend's car insurance payments were reduced. It truly boggles the mind. The car didn't move, the neighborhood didn't change -- yet the insurance company said "you are now eligible to recieve a "good neighborhood discount" -- what a bunch of malarkey. hillary gorman http://www.hillary.net info@hillary.net "to err is human; to moo, bovine." ------------------------------ From: bruce@eisner.decus.org (Barton F. Bruce) Subject: Re: Connecting Non-PBX Line Powered Equipment to 24v Analog PBX Line Organization: CentNet, Inc. Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 01:14:21 GMT In article , Steven G. Bradley writes: > I have a model 706 AT&T line powered speakerphone that works poor to > not at all at times due to lack of a full 48v. The analog PBX line > supplies 24v I am told. Is there an interface I can buy that would > let the PBX think 24v was ok and in use and yet increase it to a full > 48v on the phone side of the equation? I'd love to use my > speakerphone for it's full purpose and replacing it with one that is > on AC or batteries really is not the solution I was thinking of. There are the traditional DLL (Dial Long Line) units that can take 96VDC or whatever for talk battery, but getting and installing one will cost more than a better speaker phone would. The reason 24 volts is ok on PBXes is taht the loops are generally short. The POTS 2500 set needs nominally 23MA for the tone dial to work. There is but a few volts across the set when off hook. most of the -48 is lost elsewhere. Just for the heck of it, take a small 12VDC GelCell (burglar alarm size is fine) and wire it in **SERIES** with the phone such that it boosts rather than bucks the available voltage. I am assuming your PBX isn't capable of reversing station battery for some signaling purpose. You don't need a capacitor across the battery -- it will pass voice and ringing just fine. If this helps, look at voltage across the phone and current through it off hook and compare to using no battery. I doubt you need a second 12 bat that would bring your onhook voltage to 48 but might even put the line circuit at risk (though I doubt it). You would need a very small trickle charge to keep the battery charged. Find a slightly higher voltage wall-wart and use a suitable resistor (and diode if it was an AC one) to give you a couple of MA trickle charge. Wire the charger right TO the battery rather than to other wiring common to the phone connection to it or you *will* suffer HUM problems. ------------------------------ From: bfm@pobox.com (Barry F Margolius) Subject: Re: COCOT 800-Access Charges Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 06:09:02 GMT Organization: INTERNET AMERICA nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) wrote: > In article , dstott@juno.com (Dave J > Stott) writes: >> That's real world. We're not poor, we're not COCOT dependent, we're >> not interested in market-based pricing vs government regulation. All >> we care about is that my teenager can call home from where ever she >> is, even if she forgets her quarter. > I will blow off this ONCE more about this issue, and then I will shut > up, I promise. > The previous poster makes a good argument that "free 800" is not just > an issue of money but of convenience/assessibility, as you do not > always carry the right coins. This is true, granted. I pretty much agree with your position, but I did want to amplify it by pointing out that it is conceivable that an 800 call from a payphone might not be free, but would still require no "quarter". The COCOT could charge the 800 provider the $0.35 (or whatever), and the 800 provider could pass it on to the customer. Barry F Margolius, NYC bfm@pobox.com For PGP Key, finger bfm@panix.com ------------------------------ From: edongp@aol.com Subject: Re: COCOTs and 800 Numbers Date: 7 Dec 1996 06:26:24 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com This time there is a way to call through a payphone without being charged an arm and a leg if you do some advance planning. For the first time, you could get your own call back switch, install it in your home, and call from payphones, hotel phones, dormitory phones and charge everything to your home phone (which is the lowest rate you could get anywhere). Visit http://www.woodtel.com/DIALMATE1.html for complete information. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 08:59:48 -0800 From: Marty Tennant Reply-To: marty@sccoast.net Organization: Low Tech Designs, Inc. Subject: N11 Codes 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. 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. 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. 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 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. Marty Tennant Low Tech Designs, Inc. New Neighborhood Networks(tm) ------------------------------ From: arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens) Subject: Replacing a Cell Phone Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 14:48:42 -0800 Organization: USC/Information Sciences Institute In the US -- I don't know about the situation elsewhere -- it is customary for cellular service providers to subsidize the cost of a new phone in return for the customer signing an extended service contract. Typically, a 12 or 24 month contract is required for a subsidy on the order of US$300. Which makes me wonder, how do people typically go about getting a new cell phone to replace an old one? Do they wait until the expiration of the contract on the first phone, and then junk it and buy the new one, so as to receive the subsidy again? In this case, is there any way to convince the service provider to allow the subscriber to keep the old phone number? Or, in order to keep the same phone number, do people just bite the bullet and pay full price for the new phone? Or is there some other possibility? I'd be curious to hear from folks who have had personal experiences with such matters. Yigal Arens I believe in luck: how else can you explain USC/ISI the success of those you dislike? arens@isi.edu -- Jean Cocteau http://www.isi.edu/sims/arens [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Most carriers will allow you to extend your contract another period of time to commence when the current contract expires. For example, you have six months to go on your two year contract with the cellular carrier. You need to get a new phone. Ask the carrier to allow you to commit to another two year contract in addition to the six months remaining on the present one. The carrier will refer you to a dealer who will match the ESN in your new phone with your existing number and deactivate the ESN in the old phone. It won't take but a few minutes most of the time. When my former cell phone 'walked away' one day, I notified the dealer as well as Frontier. Actually I called Ameritech (which is resold by Frontier) since it was after hours -- about midnight -- when I discovered the phone was gone. I called Ameritech and asked them to kill the ESN but hold the two numbers pending a new ESN. I had the dealer send me a new phone which was delivered the next day with the same phone numbers as the old phone. Before the dealer sent me the new phone he called Frontier and had them fax Ameritech with the new ESN. The only kink in my case which held it up was that the phone has two numbers served off the same switch assigned to the same ESN -- a no no -- requiring supervisory override to get the switch to accept both numbers on the same ESN assignment. That took another day to clear up, but had it not been for that, I was back in business with the same number a couple days after the original phone decided to lose me somewhere. You should have no problems. The carrier will be glad to have you around for another two or three year term. PAT] ------------------------------ From: swb@mercury.campbell-mithun.com (Shawn Barnhart) Subject: Competing Local Telecom Providers: How's it Work? Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 18:16:34 -0600 Organization: Chaos I was having a discussion with someone the other day about what's involved in forming one of the new, competing local telephone companies that the Telecom bill was supposed to have made legal. I'm not an expert on telecommunications, and I was kind of curious how it was actually supposed to work. I can understand some of the infrastructure needs, but what about the circuits that terminate in a residence or place of business? Will they be granted access to the existing phone company exchanges and only have to deal with trunking? Or will they have to run wire to each and every customer in addition to the necessary trunking lines? Shawn Barnhart swb@mercury.campbell-mithun.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If they were actually competing, they would run wire to each premise, install instruments, etc. But as a matter of fact the 'competitors' have whined so much about it and claimed Bell had such an unfair advantage that regulatory agencies have required Bell to allow the 'competitors' to co-locate in the same central office. In some instances, they do not even bother with that formality; they just force Bell to sell to them wholesale at a deep discount so they can resell to the public cheaper than what Bell does while telling the public what a ripoff Bell is for charging customers as much as they do. They cannot accept assignment of a group of phone numbers which in their opinion 'look funny' because this would also in their opinion be unfair, so Bell has to open up all sorts of new area codes so the 'competitors' can grab thousand upon thousands of phone numbers they will never manage to assign to anyone in the next twenty years. They even want to force Bell to include all their listings in the existing Bell directory because ... well, you guessed it, it would be unfair to force them to go to the expense and effort of compiling their own. The only thing they have not demanded and been granted thus far is that Bell be forced to revert to nineteenth century telephone technology while the 'competitors' spend the next hundred years or so trying to catch up. So no, you won't see new wires brought to your premises in most instances. If it does happen, they will be Bell wires leased by the competitor to serve you. You won't even see trunking and co-location all that often either. Most of the time it will amount to nothing more than accounting entries on the books of telco and the competitor. A lot of the 'competitors' will be little more than reincarnations of our good friends, the Alternate Operator Services. The AOS' are essentially bottom-feeders; they serve no useful function except to charge a lot more than the 'real operators' for their services. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joe Jensen Subject: Re: Ethernet Over Power Lines Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 16:59:38 -0500 At a recent trade show, Novell was showing a new technology that they claimed to be able to provide as high as 1.5 Mbps over typical small business or residential power distribution lines (inside the house). This was proposed as a cheap way to provide LAN connectivity for various copiers, printers, faxes, and PCs in a residential or small business environment. The protocol was based on an emerging standard but the transport layer was proprietary. I believe they still have some information on their web site. At the show, they were handing out CDROMs with information on the product. Joe Jensen Buckeye Cablevision Toledo, Ohio ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 18:23:54 -0500 From: Henry J. Becker Reply-To: hbecker@ix.netcom.com Organization: The QB Group / MIS Training Institute 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? It is not a *wild idea* -- it is quite practical when you think about it; since the power company's own their right-of-way. From the little I know, power company control systems are called SCADA. This is the system that controls substations and grid switches from a central point. The signalling system is part of SCADA. Other systems that poll remote power readers, or control load-shed are not part of SCADA -- but work similarly. From all of the wireless communication information I have read, I think the protocol used is a variant of Token Ring. Because of the large amount of noise on the power lines, it is important to receive acknowledgement that a packet was successfully received. I agree that an Ethernet protocol could accomplish the same abjective. I was also surprised to read of references of signalling speeds of 100K and higher. I know that is presently available from one vendor - under extremely limited distances and high quality lines. I am aware of typical systems in the hertz-to-kilohertz range. Hope this helps. ------------------------------ From: Jeffrey Race Subject: Wanted: AudioVox/Spectrum Cellular Interface Date: Sun, 8 DEC 96 11:22:55 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) I desire to buy one or more analog interfaces for Audiovox 3200 bagphone, sold by Audiovox with p/n STI-85, and also by Spectrum (before they abandoned the product line) under a different p/n. Please reply to jrace@ibm.net. ------------------------------ From: hancock4@cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Calling a Spammer Collect? Date: 8 Dec 1996 17:59:30 GMT Organization: Philadelphia City Paper's City Net I'm getting more and more unwanted email in my box everyday. A few messages list regular phone numbers (not 800) to call for more information. Is there any law saying I can't call the person COLLECT to complain about their spamming. I realize someone has to actually answer and accept the call, it can't be to a machine. But, frankly, I want to give them an earful for their spam. Along those lines, is there still a "COLLECT PERSON" tariff? That is, I'll call COLLECT, PERSON TO PERSON, (asking to speak to a "manager"), so the call will be billed at person-to-person rates. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, there is still collect person-to- person, and it is quite expensive. By the time they get a few of those calls -- if they choose to accept the charges -- they'll wish they had given out their 800 number instead. There is no law against calling anyone collect if that person is willing to pay for it. The only exception is collection agencies; they may not call collect. Would you believe though that some have tried calling collect to discuss your past due bills, etc? One well-known collection agency here in Skokie which has been around for fifty years is known as Van Ru. The people at Van Ru tend to collect debts on the low end of the scale like Columbia Record Club (now I guess they call it Columbia House and they specialize in CDs) and for used car dealers and furniture/ carpet wholesale houses, etc. They tend to work with not terribly intelligent debtors. For about five years, Van Ru would call collect disguising the true purpose of their call until after the debtor accepted the charges for the call. Talk about adding a little insult to injury ... finally the Federal Trade Commission cracked down on Van Ru (and one of the other major agencies which had started doing the same thing called 'Gulf Coast' [now GC Services] in Houston, Texas), and told them no more collect calls to debtors. That was back in the early 1970's. But yeah, you can call collect if you can get them to accept the charges. If a couple hundred people in one day all tried to get through on a collect basis to the same spammer the response should be interesting, to say the least. Better ask for the order department however; make it sound at first like you want to buy whatever they are selling and need to know where to send your check. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 12:27:36 CST From: Christopher Wolf Subject: Win95 and Areacode Overlays Pat, Do you or any of your readers know how Win95 users in cities with new areacode overlays (like 713/281 in Houston) can get their systems to recognize when and when not to dial a 1 when using the dialing features built into Win95? There must be numerous people that have found and addressed this problem -- what's the fix? Wolf ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #654 ******************************