Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA03075; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 08:39:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 08:39:19 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701271339.IAA03075@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #21 TELECOM Digest Mon, 27 Jan 97 08:39:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 21 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Alternate Directory Providers (Mark J. Cuccia) Public Data Disappearing From NTIA Online Sites (Ronda Hauben) FCC Says NO to 56kbps Technology Modems (Billy Newsom) LINCS is Back Up and Running (John Cropper) Dixon, CA, Moving From 916 to 707 - Also Changing LATAs? (Linc Madison) Great European Renumbering Proposal (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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 18:42:38 -0800 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Alternate Directory Providers Rick Prelinger wrote: > Lately my customers have been informing me that Directory Assistance > is giving them an outdated, three-year-old number for our business. > As it happens, this number isn't in the NYNEX database, but I've > determined that those getting this bad information are Sprint/MCI > customers probably reaching some contract DA provider. > Who are these providers? And how does one reach them to remove an > outdated or incorrect listing in their DA databases? AFAIK, when you use MCI or Sprint to call directory assistance in an out-of-state (or out-of-LATA or NPA), you still do route to the genuine Bell/LEC's inward directory operator who serves that called state/LATA/NPA. However, when using AT&T to call such out-of-state/LATA/NPA directory but still within the (continental) US, most likely, you will *NOT* route to the genuine Bell/LEC directory operator. There are still some local telcos which AT&T does route to. The third-party-contract company which AT&T is now using for directory assistance calls in certain parts of the US is known as "Excell Agency Services" in Tempe or Phoenix AZ. They are acting on 'behalf' of AT&T. Their directory operators and main offices are located in AZ, even though you might be trying to reach directory assistance in New York City! Excell (for AT&T) will claim to actually 'be' AT&T when asked if they are the Bell/LEC directory operator or someone else. They don't seem to want to admit that they are "Excell Agency Services". The listings in their database system aren't always up to date. There are *many* numbers which *I KNOW* to be relatively 'new' listings (about a month old), and have been in the issuing LEC's directory database within a day or two of the number being assigned, yet Excell's directory database won't have those numbers. (That's an 85-cent call via AT&T to 'not' get a number!). Some listings which were changed to other numbers about a year or two ago (as in Rick Prelinger's situation) are still listed by Excell as the old number. The old number, when dialed, might still go to intercept, but not to 'new-number-referral' anymore. That number might even have been *reassigned* to some other customer! Again, that's 85-cents via AT&T to be given a *wrong* number by Excell, and then an (AT&T) toll call to a number of some other customer! I've even heard that is could be possible they could even be giving out numbers which are flagged by the issuing local telco as "nonpublished"! It seems that they get their listings for their database from sources such as credit reporting agencies and the like, rather than from the issuing local telco's systems. As far as *I* am concerned, AT&T is *again* shooting itself in the foot by contracting out and routing to this third party for directory! Years ago, I would *never* have thought that *AT&T* would do such a thing! I would have thought that the 'other common carriers' would route 555-1212 calls to some third-party contract agency -- it seems to be the other way around! I still prefer to remain loyal to AT&T, but for long-distance directory calls, I am *now* placing most if not all of them via MCI and Sprint. I have told various people at AT&T that I have 'left' AT&T when it comes to calling directory! To place calls to out-of-state/NPA/LATA directory via carriers 'other' than AT&T, so that I can reach the genuine Bell/LEC inward directory operator or center, rather than "Excell", I dial the following: From home, I use 10(10)222 for MCI, 10(10)333 for Sprint, 10(10)450 for LDDS; then I continue dialing 1-NPA-KLondike-5-1212. If calling from a PBX/Cellular/Payphone which allows use of 10(1X)XXX+ codes, and then 0+ NPA-KL.5-1212, so as to bill to a card number, these carriers mentioned *do* allow billing to a LEC-issued (BellSouth in my case) card number whether a LEC-issued *line-number* card or a LEC-issued *RAO-based* card number. And, if you have a 'standard' CIID-based card from the dialed carrier, you could bill to that card. And, of course, you can bill to a 'proprietary' card issued by the dialed carrier if you have an account and card from that carrier. And you can probably bill the call to a 'commercial/consumer' credit card (Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, etc). If the PBX/Cellular/Payphone/CPE-interface you are calling from doesn't allow use of 10(1X)XXX+ codes, you can still place the call to directory via a carrier other than AT&T by using the carriers' 800 access numbers. However, if you don't have a 'proprietary' card (and account) from MCI or Sprint, you can still bill the call to a LEC-issued card number by dialing the following 800 numbers: MCI: 800-COLLECT (800-265-5328) Sprint: 800-210-CARD (800-210-2273) and then follow the instructions for the type of card you wish to bill to, and enter in the NPA-555-1212. (I wonder of these 800 numbers will also work to place calls to that carrier's 500-NXX-xxxx numbers but billed to a LEC-issued card number?) These 800 numbers go first to automated prompts, but you can cut-through to a live operator. Please note: the 'general' 800 access numbers for those carriers which are given to their *own* customers (800-877-8000 for Sprint, 800-888-8000 for MCI, and any 950 numbers or 800-950 numbers if they still do work from some locations) can be used *only* to bill calls to that carrier's own issued 'proprietary' cards, if you actually have an account with the carrier. As for Excell Agency Services, they do have an 800 number if you suspect that they have your entry indicated incorrectly in their database. Their 'customer service(?)' in Arizona can be reached at 800-553-8163. They do have a way (probably via MCI or Sprint, or maybe with an FX line) to verify the listing with the genuine Bell/LEC directory in the area in question. But I've been told that Excell doesn't like to identify themself on that 800 number, and will 'claim' to be AT&T Directory Services if you ask them who they actually are! I would hope that Excell can be made to clean up their act, or that AT&T will either go back to routing to the genuine Bell/LEC directory, or if they still want to 'contract out', that they will deal with a more responsible company! If the problems continue and mount, maybe the FCC and ATIS need to look into the situation, possibly even the FTC! Unfortunately, I'm afraid that the situation could get even more messy as local telco competition gets going. Who will maintain local directory listings databases in such a local competitive environment? Which telcos will actually access the database? When I dial 1/0+411 locally, which directory operator or company will answer the line? Another problem with AT&T contracting the services to Excell, and routing NPA-KL.5-1212 calls via their network to them is that it seems that calls *from* Canada, placed via the Stentor LEC (at least from Bell Canada territory, originating via Bell Canada rather than via another Canadian toll carrier) is that while the Stentor LEC's might seem to have a business and licensing arrangement with MCI, the actual routing of calls from Canada to the US (originated via the Stentor LEC) still route into the US-based AT&T (Long-Lines) network, as it did all along! Once the call enters the US AT&T network, the NPA-KL.5-1212 is routed to either the genuine Bell/LEC directory (in a few cases indicated below), or to Excell Agency. I don't know if Canada to US NPA-KL.5-1212 placed via a different Canadian long-distance carrier necessarily route via a US-based 'other' carrier which would route *all* NPA-555-1212 to the genuine Bell/LEC directory. As for the present situation, this is what I have been able to determine as to which locations AT&T routes to Excell and which ones AT&T routes to the genuine Bell/LEC for inward NPA-KL.5-1212 directory: Locations/LEC's where AT&T routes *to* the genuine Bell/LEC include most-if-not-all-of: SNET's NPA's 203, 860 (CT) Bell South's NPA's and states Ameritech's NPA's and states Cincinnati (OH) Bell region (NPA 513), which would include requests for numbers in Cincinnati Bell's suburban KY and IN, as since these could actually be handled by Ameritech and BellSouth, which AT&T does continue to route to. GTE-FL NPA 813 (and 941), Tampa area the Canadian Stentor LEC's NPA's and I assume that AT&T continues to route to GTE for 808 Hawaii, and to Alascom for 907 Alaska. Incidently, AT&T now owns Alascom. The Caribbean (809 and the new split-off NPA's) is a different situation; AT&T will probably continue to route to the genuine LEC (Cable & Wireless, GTE-Codetel in the Dominican Republic, US VITELCO, Puerto Rico Telco), although until 809 completely splits apart, use of 809-KL.5-1212 will continue to first route to an "AT&T Caribbean Intercept" Operator, who asks "what island, please?", before actually connecting to local directory on that island/country. Calls to directory for countries *outside* of the NANP must still be placed through the AT&T OSPS operator, and carry a charge of roughly FIVE DOLLARS (!). But those calls *are* routed to inward directory in the requested foreign non-NANP country. I also assume that AT&T will continue to route to the genuine GTA (Guam) and MTC (Micronesia Telco - CNMI) when +671 and +670 become +1-671 and +1-670 (i.e. integrated within the NANP), when one dials (1/0)-670 or 671 + KLondike-5-1212, via the AT&T network, rather than routing to Excell. AT&T seems to route to Excell Agency for directory when the dialed NPA of the 555-1212 request if for the following areas: most-if-not-all-of NYNEX NPA's most-if-not-all-of Pac Bell California (and Nevada Bell?) NPA's most-if-not-all-of US West's NPA's most-if-not-all-of Southwestern Bell's NPA's I haven't actually tried each and every NPA to call KL.5-1212 to double check, as each call can cost at least 85-cents and up to just over a dollar via AT&T. As for 555-1212 directory requests in Bell Atlantic's NPA's, I have come across the following: most if not all of Pennsylvania's NPA's- I *know* of 412 (and maybe 724?) in the Pittsburgh area. (I don't know about Delaware's 302 yet) seems to route to Excell Agency most if not all of New Jersey's NPA's route to Bell Atlantic, (formerly New Jersey Bell) the former C&P region of VA, DC, MD (and maybe West VA?) seems to route to CFW (Clifton Falls - Waynes) local *independent* telco's directory operator who might just have proper access to the actual Bell Atlantic database. CFW seems to be located in the Covington VA area, and *IS* a 'bona-fide' local independent telco for that part of Virginia. But calls to VA/DC/MD area code directory placed via MCI or Sprint *do* route to Bell Atlantic. I don't think that CFW, being an actual local telco, would have the same problems that Excell has. Unfortunately, such a vast erroneous listings database of Excell is going to give a bad name to AT&T, and also give an *undeserved* bad name to the actual Bell/LEC directory assistance operations. Customers are going to think that the inward LEC is giving them an old number or not giving them relatively new listings. And what about the customer who has been *paying* his LEC for a 'non-pub' for years, and finds out that people get the number 'from directory assistance'(!). That non-pub customer is first going to blame their LEC! Personally, I trust only the LEC directory operators. But if a contract agency can keep their database corrected and updated, it isn't that big of a concern. But another reason that the genuine Bell/LEC directory is better in my mind is that you'd expect them to be more familiar with the geography of the area in question, rather than some centralized contract directory center. 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: ronda@panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Subject: Public Data Disappearing From NTIA Online Sites Date: 25 Jan 1997 18:59:06 -0500 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC For the past 2 years the Virtual Confernce on Universal Access held by the NTIA in Nov. 1994 was available online at an NTIA site. Now, however, that regulations in the U.S. are being written about Universal access, the public discussion on this issue is no longer being made available by the U.S. government online and one wonders if it is available anywhere any longer. It is disturbing that the online confernce called by the U.S. government under the Dept. of Commerce to supposedly help gather citizen views on what should be the future of the Net and how to provide for Universal access to the Net was never consulted by the U.S. lawmakers in creating the new Telecommunications law. It is even more disturbing that the link to it on the NTIA govt site no longer even works, making it seem as if the U.S. govt. is intent on an eastern European type of "forgetting" to not only *not* consider the opinions and views of citizens in the U.S. but also to make it seem as if the online conference they called and promised to keep available online, never even occurred. We have some articles on the Nov. 1994 online conference in our online book "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet" http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook See especially chapter 11 "The NTIA Conference on the Future of the Net: Creating a Prototype of a Democratic Decision Making Process" and chapter 14 "The Net and the Future of Politics: The Ascendancy of the Commons" Ronda ronda@panix.com ae547@yfn.ysu.edu ------------------------------ From: Billy Newsom Subject: FCC Says No to 56kbps Technology Modems Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 18:11:58 -0600 Hot off the press: According to a report Friday from the Los Angeles Times, the 28.8 kbps modem standard may very well be standard for a while longer. The FCC currently has a regulation that limits the amount of power used to send data through a telephone line - which could compromise the legality of faster modems. The issue surfaced during FCC hearings this week concerning the efficiency of telecommunications. Bandwidth, and its varied interpretations, are also in focus. Because newer, faster modems will require more power for data transmission than the existing FCC rule allows, the FCC must grant a waiver before 56K modems can be released. Manufacturers of advanced modem technology are pressing on towards the goal of better data transmission - but it could be much longer before such technological advancements become legal in the eyes of the FCC. Billy Newsom :^p uruiamme@why.net My site: Motherboard HomeWorld (a.k.a. **DANGER**) http://users.why.net/uruiamme/ nO nEED tO yELL! The only site on the Internet devoted exclusively to motherboards ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: LINCS is Back Up and Running Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 09:29:20 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com Two good things happened last week ... 1. Our primary netserver came back up (after a bit of wrangling with our parts supplier after first the board we deployed in November died, then the CPU failed a week later!) and I was able to begin updating our web site properly. 2. We've made our -final- move for a while, and gotten our domain name (sorry Linc Madison ... lincs.net is now taken ... :->) For those who have suggested changes, thanks; we are now beginning to implement them now. We're running on a much faster, more stable server with multiple T-1 connections, and I'm working out the bugs for those who have their graphics settings turned OFF on their browsers to save space. http://www.lincs.net/ follow the 'NPA Info!' link for (literally) up-to-the-minute NANP information ... 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.lincs.net ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Dixon, CA, Moving From 916 to 707 - Also Changing LATAs? Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 16:09:45 -0800 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! I was just looking at the LATA map in my phone book, and was reminded about the fact that Dixon, California, is switching from area code 916 into area code 707, rather than area code 530. (Dixon is currently the only part of Solano County that is not in 707, so this is a sensible move.) The other question that arises, though, regards LATA boundaries. At the moment, Dixon and roughly the southern 1/3 of the current 916 area code form the Sacramento LATA. Area code 707 is entirely in the San Francisco LATA, along with 415, 510, and the northern part of 408 (not counting the upcoming splits). It would seem to me that Dixon will also move LATAs at the same time it changes area codes, although this point has not been highlighted at all in the press coverage. LATA boundaries are certainly less important than they used to be, and may become entirely irrelevant in the not-too-distant future, but for now, there are still various special billing options from the LEC for calls within your LATA. Dixon is a toll call from Fairfield (the county seat) and from Vallejo (the largest town in the county). At present those are inter-LATA toll calls, while Sacramento and Lake Tahoe are intra-LATA. Trickier is the question of calls from Dixon to Davis. At the moment, that should be an intra-LATA local call, but it will be inter-LATA if Dixon is moved into the San Francisco LATA. Dixon is scheduled to be splash-cut to 707 on October 4, 1997; permissive dialing for the 916/530 split begins November 1st. I believe that Dixon is served by Pacific Bell, in which case Pac Bell needs to iron out these little details and notify folks in that area, making a special effort to contact any customers that have a Pac Bell Local Plus discount plan. ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Great European Renumbering Proposal Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 04:09:17 -0800 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! I've just been reading some documents from the European Union regarding some proposed numbering changes in Europe, on a vast scale. The full text of the proposal, in Microsoft Word for Windows format (213K) is at: This is not some off-the-wall proposal from some private citizen, but an official working document of the European Union. Various aspects of this plan are scheduled to be finalized by June or December of 1997, with implementation targed for 1998 through 2000. Of course, both the plan and the proposed schedule are insane and will never happen, but we can't just dismiss the plan out of hand, since it has official backing. The basic plan is to make Europe into a unified "World Zone 3," similar to the North American "World Zone 1," but with some significant differences. Each existing two-digit country code in Europe would be prefixed with a 3 to make a three-digit code; all existing 3-digit codes in Europe already begin with a '3'. Harmonization of numbering for freephone (0800) and other services would also be effected. However, the "green paper" doesn't address the colossal code conflicts that this proposal would create in France and Spain. For instance, London +44-20 would become +344-20, but that conflicts with Bilbao, Spain, +34-4-20... That number in Bilbao in turn would become +334-4-20..., but it would then conflict with a number in southeastern France, +33-4-420... [For those of you saying "London = 20?," area codes 0171 and 0181 in London will un-split into area code 020 in the year 2000, with 8-digit local numbers.] This particular example uses only real numbers which exist or will exist within 3 years, so the conflict is quite substantial. In order to work the proposed scheme, there will need to be at least a four-phase changeover, which must be followed sequentially. At each stage, there will need to be a minimum of one year of permissive dialing, followed by at least one year of intercept recordings. 1. Area code 03 in northeastern France (just created Oct. 18, 1996) is changed to an unused code (07, perhaps?). 2. France moves from +33 to +333. 3. Spain moves from +34 to +334. 4. Other countries with +3X or +4X codes move to +33X or +34X. Then, at last, you will be able to dial a number in London as follows: within London ..... dial the 8-digit local number, e.g. 2345-6789 other U.K. ........ dial 020-2345-6789 other Europe ...... dial 144-20-2345-6789 outside Europe .... dial +344-20-2345-6789 Note that for dialing to another country in Europe, you dial '1' plus the last two digits of the country code. This means, though, that many local service codes in Britain would conflict with the new pan-European dialing instructions. For example, 153 is international directory inquiries, but would be the new prefix for calls to Ireland. Also, there are areas in Europe that have local numbers beginning with 1; for example, Budapest. Then there's the problem of the split of the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Currently, all country codes beginning with 4 are two digits, 40 through 49, but the plan is rumored to be to put the Czech Republic into 420 and Slovakia into 421. That throws a monkey wrench right into the grand EU plan, because you can't move them to +3420 and +3421, and even if you could, it would violate the uniformity of the new dialing rules. Anyway, the plan also includes using +388-8 for European freephone numbers, which would be dialed 1888 from within Europe. If the Ukraine goes along with the plan and doesn't have any city codes beginning with a significant zero, then 1800 would also be available. Note that 1800 is already used for freephone in Ireland, instead of 0800. They also plan to use 1500 for Personal Numbers (taking advantage of unused numbering ranges in Gibraltar) and 1900 for premium numbers. The plan also calls for harmonization of "short codes" throughout Europe, including directory inquiries, carrier selection codes, and operator service codes, in addition to the new European standard of 112 for emergency services. Country codes 30X, 31X, and 32X will be left spare, to allow for use of 10XXX carrier selection codes, 11X pan-European short codes, and 12X national short codes. Country code 390 will be left spare to prevent conflict with 1900 premium services. If the rest of Europe goes along, that would leave +36X, +39X (except +390), and +4XX available. The unused +3XX codes would be reserved to the European numbering authority, while the +4XX codes would be released to the ITU. (Hey -- maybe we could assign +4XX country codes to all those islands in the Caribbean that are/used to be +1-809!!) The E.U. currently consists of: +30 Greece changes to +330 -- no conflict +31 Netherlands changes to +331 -- conflicts with Paris +32 Belgium changes to +332 -- conflicts with NW France +33 France changes to +333 -- conflicts with NE France +34 Spain changes to +334 -- conflicts with SE France +351 Portugal remains +351 +352 Luxembourg remains +352 +353 Ireland remains +353 +358 Finland remains +358 +39 Italy changes to +339 -- no conflict +43 Austria changes to +343 -- conflicts with Barcelona +44 United Kingdom changes to +344 -- conflicts with Bilbao +45 Denmark changes to +345 -- conflicts with Seville +46 Sweden changes to +346 -- conflicts with Valencia +49 Germany changes to +349 -- no conflict? In addition, the following country codes are associated with the E.U.: +350 Gibraltar remains +350 +376 Andorra remains +376 +377 Monaco remains +377 +378 San Marino remains +378 +379* Vatican City remains +379 (*code not yet in use) +47 Norway (in the process of joining the E.U.) changes to +347 -- conflicts with Mallorca Then we have the other countries in the European zone: +354 Iceland +372 Estonia +387 Bosnia-Herzegovina +355 Albania +373 Moldova +389 F.Y.R. Makedonija +356 Malta +374 Armenia +40 Romania +357 Cyprus +375 Belarus +41 Switz., Liech. +359 Bulgaria +380 Ukraine +42 Czech Rep., Slovakia +36 Hungary +381 Yugoslavia (+420 Czech Rep. -- proposed) +370 Lithuania +385 Croatia (+421 Slovakia -- proposed) +371 Latvia +386 Slovenia +48 Poland All in all, it just goes to show that those who think that U.S. bureaucrats have a way of messing up our telephone system have clearly never been to Brussels. ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #21 *****************************