Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA21690; Thu, 8 May 1997 08:31:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 08:31:28 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199705081231.IAA21690@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #113 TELECOM Digest Thu, 8 May 97 08:30:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 113 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson FCC Approves Landmark Overhaul of Phone Charges (Monty Solomon) 911 and Payphones (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: False 911 Calls (John Nagle) Re: False 911 Calls (Sanjay Parekh) Dial `2' For Grandma (Tad Cook) Hearing on 212, 917 Relief (John Cropper) Explanation Wanted of Wiretap Rules (Dean Webb) 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: * subscriptions@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!) They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org 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: Wed, 7 May 1997 22:29:51 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FCC Approves Landmark Overhaul of Phone Charges Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM FYI. From Reuters. FCC approves landmark overhaul of phone charges May 7, 1997 2:09 PM EDT By Roger Fillion WASHINGTON (Reuter) - Regulators Wednesday approved a sweeping overhaul of domestic telephone charges that they said will lower costs for residential and business customers who make a lot of long-distance calls. Federal Communications Commimssion officials said basic local phone rates will stay the same. But consumers and businesses will pay more for extra phone lines and may see their bills rise if they make few long-distance calls. The FCC also voted to set aside about $2.3 billion a year to wire the nation's schools and libraries to the Internet at discounted rates. Another $400 million a year will be used to connect rural hospitals to the global computer network. The new rates mean residential customers with one phone line will see their long-distance bill drop to $20.65 a month from $22.50 by 1998, on average, according to FCC calculations. ``This is the single best day that business and residential customers have had since the (1984) breakup of AT&T,'' said FCC Chairman Reed Hundt. The overhaul also will: -- Keep the monthly ``subscriber line charge'' customers pay to the local phone company at $3.50. -- Boost the line charge for residential customers with more than one line to $5 a month from $3.50, and to more than $7.50 from $6 for multi-line businesses. Those increases will take effect next year and be followed by additional rises that ultimately will be capped at $9. -- Impose a new monthly charge on long-distance carriers that is expected to be passed on to customers. The charge will be $1.50 a line for multi-line residential customers and $2.75 a line for businesses with more than one line. -- Reduce by $1.7 billion the $23 billion in annual charges long-distance carriers pay local companies to access their networks, effective July 1. -- Reduce access charges by a total of $18.5 billion over the next five years. AT&T Corp. has promised to pass on the savings in access charges to customers through long-distance price cuts of 5 percent to 15 percent. Other long-distance carriers have signaled they will follow suit. Phone companies gave the rate overhaul mixed ratings. AT&T generally praised the plan, but No. 2 long-distance carrier MCI Communications Corp. said the access charge reductions did not go far enough. Regional phone compannies Bell Atlantic Corp. and Nynex Corp., which are merging, questioned the access-charge rate cut. Industry analysts, meanwhile, also offered mixed views. ``There was a lot of huffing and puffing, but this is incremental change and not revolutionary change,'' said Scott Cleland of Schwab Research Group. ) Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 12:31:11 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: 911 and Payphones > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What about malicious people dialing > 911 just to stir up a little action? Here in Skokie some fool was > going through the train station several times per week late in the > evening, dialing 911 then walking away and leaving the phone off hook > or sometimes just hanging up and walking away. Of course every time > this happened a police car would have to go there. I do not know if > they ever caught him or not; the calls apparently stopped. In Chicago > for many years prior to 911 when there was no convenient or easy way > to trace false alarms, the Fire Department was plagued with false > alarms -- sometimes a couple hundred per day. In many instances it > was not so much a false alarm as it was a confused person giving the > wrong address for a legitimate fire. A few years back, here in New Orleans, the city was going to fine businesses or impose a surcharge on false alarms from burglar alarm or fire alarm systems when the 'official' police or fire department (or one of the other law enforcement jurisdictions) answered the call. As for false calls to 911, a few months back, I seem to remember that the city's 911 system was *NOT* going to send out a police car to investigate if the 'hang-up' call came from a payphone. Just as in other major metro areas, here in New Orleans, fools or kids dial 911, usually from payphones, just for the sick 'fun' of it. > We have many streets in Chicago with both a *north side* and *south > side* of the city designation such as *North* Kedzie Avenue and > *South* Kedzie Avenue; or *North* Cicero Avenue and *South* Cicero > Avenue. So what was the Fire Department supposed to do when calls > were received from someone who shouted hysterically into the phone, > 'there is a fire at 1234 Kedzie Avenue' then hung up the phone to rush > off to safety before the dispatcher could question the person 'is that > 1234 North or 1234 South on Kedzie?' Since the addresses are a few > miles apart, the dispatcher had to send out two squads; one to each > side of town. Naturally one came back having done nothing. Most false > alarms were recorded on the books as 'mistaken citizen trying to be > helpful' unless specific malicious intent could be proven. Again, ditto for New Orleans. We have a lot of same-name streets, but with North and South designations. There is a 300 block of North and a 300 block of South . New York City has their "East Street" and "West Street", as well as "Avenues" with numericals from 'First' thru (I think) 'Twelth'. Miami has a grid system and NE/NW/SE/SW, with numerical names for *different* "streets" and "avenues". Considering that these are urban/inner-city metro areas, even if the caller to 911 is coherent and correct in identifying their location, the dispatch operators frequently seem to be illiterates/incompetents ... probably even people who are on political patronage and can't have anything done to reprimand/discipline/etc. them. Remember the fiasco in Atlanta during the Olympics last Summer with the calls to 911, and the incompetent 911 dispatch operators! :( :( :( > The installation of 911 cut back greatly on that sort of incident > once people were aware that they could be easily traced back to their > phone and address. But still, payphones are used for these 'games' > quite frequently. Another difficulty with calls to 911 from a pay > phone where the caller hangs up is that so many payphones cannot > receive incoming calls, consequently the dispatcher is unable to > ring back the line in the hopes someone will answer and give even > a brief description of the problem requiring police help. If there > are going to be any future revisions in the 911 software I would like > to see one which allows the 911 dispatcher to hold the line and > ring back manually on it, the same way a telephone operator can > hold up a line. For instance, a one way outgoing payphone never > stopped the operator from ringing back to collect more money; she > just never released the line to start with. I think 911 should be > able to seize the line when a call comes in and not have to rely > on dialing back to the caller for more details, etc. PAT] Pat, most (if not all) 911 systems out there today *CAN* hold the line and trunk, just as most *real telco* operators can (i.e. TSPS/TOPS/OSPS, and also the old cordboards as well). The only problem with payphones and many not allowing incoming calls is that the public phone equipment out there today is *COCOT*. The loop from the COCOT to the central office would be held by the 911 dispatch center, but the COCOT has either no ringer, or the ringer is turned off! :( The 911 dispatch center can press ring-backward all they want, but the people near the COCOT don't hear anything, or the 'ringer' inside of the COCOT is a low-volume electronic warbler which can't really be heard in a noisy location. Also, many COCOTs don't connect the handset to the loop upon going offhook, until the chips have processed an outgoing number. There would be no voicepath connection from the handset, even if someone did pick the handset up again if the 911 center were trying to ring-backward to the COCOT. Sometimes, there there would be a connection from the loop to *only the receiver* part of the handset. The microphone/transmitter would initially be 'turned-off' (i.e., as if there was no 'sidetone'), therefore, while the person at the payphone *knew* that 911 was calling back, the person at the payphone couldn't be heard by the 911 center. :( This is similar to many PBX systems and cellular systems. The trunk (loop) that the PBX uses to place outgoing calls is the number that the 911 center would have show up on their computer, *NOT* the actual incoming number of the telephone on an employee's desk or in the hotel room. The 911 center could hold the outgoing loop, but the PBX had already disconnected the extension from that loop if they had hung-up. Of course, many PBX systems today are enhanced enough to be more compatible with 911 systems, or at least send out the actual extension's incoming 7/10 digit number on calls to 911. Some cellular systems might send the actual cellular phone number to the 911 center on such calls, however, on cellular, if the battery began to cut out, or the caller moved too far away from a cellsite antennae, or they turned their phone off, the 911 center wouldn't be able to ring-backward to the calling cellphone. Some cellular systems (although not all) can 'try' to get the proper jurisdiction's 911 center depending on what cellsite the caller is picked up in, and try to match which city/municipality/township/parish/county/state/etc. political jurisdiction's 911 or emergency services are being requested. 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: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: False 911 Calls Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 16:40:49 GMT TELECOM Digest Editor Noted: > Another difficulty with calls to 911 from a pay > phone where the caller hangs up is that so many payphones cannot > receive incoming calls, consequently the dispatcher is unable to > ring back the line in the hopes someone will answer and give even > a brief description of the problem requiring police help. If there > are going to be any future revisions in the 911 software I would like > to see one which allows the 911 dispatcher to hold the line and > ring back manually on it, the same way a telephone operator can > hold up a line. For instance, a one way outgoing payphone never > stopped the operator from ringing back to collect more money; she > just never released the line to start with. I think 911 should be > able to seize the line when a call comes in and not have to rely > on dialing back to the caller for more details, etc. PAT] I had to read up on E911 systems once, and as I understand it, the call remains up until the dispatcher releases it. That's a feature specified in the spec, as I recall. Remember, E911 works a lot like LD; the lines to the E911 center are normally 4-wire toll trunks, not subscriber-type lines. Historically, it was done that way because E911 was implemented back when end offices were still largely electromechanical but the AT&T toll switches were programmable. So E911 was originally implemented in the toll switches, not the end office switches. This gave the E911 center many of the powers of an operator, including the ability to hold a call up. However, it's quite possible that some COCOTs are programmed so that once you hang up, you can't pick up the handset and continue, regardless of the state of the line. John Nagle ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 13:04:01 -0400 From: Sanjay Parekh Subject: Re: False 911 Calls > a brief description of the problem requiring police help. If there > are going to be any future revisions in the 911 software I would like > to see one which allows the 911 dispatcher to hold the line and > ring back manually on it, the same way a telephone operator can > hold up a line. For instance, a one way outgoing payphone never > stopped the operator from ringing back to collect more money; she > just never released the line to start with. I think 911 should be > able to seize the line when a call comes in and not have to rely > on dialing back to the caller for more details, etc. PAT] Looks like its time for me to stop lurking and thrown my two cents in. I was recently out in Japan working with our stuff and a DMS-10J. Apparently in Japan there is this kind of functionality. They have a specialized trunk called a FPT (fire/police trunk) on which the operator gets total control of your line if you call. Once you call, they can ring you back, keep the line open, etc. until they decide to release your line. And the ring back is distinct in that there is no cadence, just a continual ring (I think..). I would have thought we would have that kind of functionality but I guess not ... | Sanjay Parekh | | | Systems Engineer - Cornerstone | sanjay.parekh@arris-i.com | | Arris Interactive | phone: 770-622-8627 | | Atlanta, GA | | ------------------------------ Subject: Dial `2' For Grandma Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 12:24:44 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Published Wednesday, May 7, 1997,in the {San Jose Mercury News}. Dial `2' for grandma By Charles McDowell LAST WEEK Maryland became the first state in which all telephone calls, even one to a next-door neighbor, require the dialing of an area code. Virginia and several other states are expected to acknowledge very soon the same irritating surge of progress. The growing number of traditional telephones, along with cellular phones, pagers, fax machines, answering machines, computer lines and assorted conference-call systems, will make 10 digits the standard for phone numbers. Ten digits are something to think about, especially if you are old enough to remember when three or four digits were enough to sustain telephonic communication in most towns of the United States. I still remember a batch of three-digit telephone numbers from a boyhood in small-town Virginia. And I will confess, indeed, that I remember when my grandparents in Lawrenceburg, Ky., had the telephone number 2. Yes, just 2. That was in the 1930s. Now in the late 1990s, I am sobered to have seen telephone numbers progress through the range from one to 10 digits. This reflects some progress in the communications system, but it also reflects some losses. We have lost "Central," who said "Number please," when we picked up the telephone. She was reassuring, helpful and hopeful as we adapted to an awesome innovation in our lives. My parents and brother and I used to spend summers with my maternal grandparents on the farm in Kentucky. I remember going with my grandfather one day to his law office in Lawrenceburg. In the afternoon, I got bored and tried to call my grandmother at the farm to come and get me. The operator said: "Number please." I said: "Two, please." The operator said: "If you're calling Mrs. Feland, she and her neighbor Mrs. Sherwood are at the A&P. They've tried to call Mr. Feland but he was on the phone with some lawyer in Frankfurt. Anyway, the message is that they are coming by the office and will drive you back to the farm because that young Jersey cow just had a calf." Anyway, the operator as friend and positive meddler is just about gone. The modern caller and high technology dial up the numbers and all the rest of it, and Americans in tune with the times have several lines into home and office, a pager in their pocket and a cell-phone and maybe a cell-fax in the car. And Americans lead the enthusiasts for all of it. In recent years, the symbol of the communications revolution has been cell-phones -- tens of millions of them added to the power of America in all their wireless glory amid the traffic jams. I personally am still trying to learn how to hunch my shoulder properly to steer, operate the other controls, honk the horn at idiots and hear the phone and all the wisdom in it. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Having found out just yesterday in the papers here that we in 847 are due for another splint in a few months, your article about phone number '2' was very nostalgic for me. I remember very well phone numbers of one through four digits in length all handled manually. As I think I mentioned the other day, the Amoco Oil Refinery PBX in Whiting, Indiana was number 2111. The mayor of Whiting had 1, the Commonwealth Edison generating station was 6, a Walgreen's Drug Store was 89, and Western Union was of course, 4321. Those were long-ago times. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Hearing on 212, 917 Relief Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 05:33:22 -0400 Organization: Mindspring Enterprises From the NY PSC: As the next steps in the process, parties will be authorized to submit comments that critique New York Telephone's reports and propose alternate arrangements for long-term relief for the 212 and 917 area codes. Comments will be due May 12, 1997, and reply comments will be due June 2, 1997. Thereafter, a collaborative conference will be held on June 16, 1997, at which I hope the parties will be able to reach some degree of consensus. The nature of any further proceedings will depend on the outcome of that collaborative conference. In addition, after reviewing the May 12 comments, I will evaluate the need, if any, for task forces or other fact-finding measures. Contemporaneously with these events, a public input process will be under way in which we attempt to ascertain the views of the public at large regarding the matters at hand. The times and places of the public statement hearings are under consideration and will be announced shortly. Note: Just a reminder that Bell Atlantic (NYNEX) wants an overlay, and CLECs prefer a split ... John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.76.LINCS LINCS fax: 888.57.LINCS P.O. Box 277 mailto:jcropper@lincs.net Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 http://www.lincs.net/ The latest compiled area code information is available from us! NPAs, NXXs, Dates, all at http://www.lincs.net/areacode/ ------------------------------ From: Dean Webb Subject: Explanation Wanted on Wiretap Rules Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 13:32:33 -0500 I am interested in finding information concerning the monitoring of various forms of telecommunications, including but not limited to, telephone conversations, modem traffic, network traffic inside a corporate office, network traffic in transit between offices (either those of the same company or of another's), and so on. How are the rules different for individuals, corporations, and government/law enforcement agencies? Which states require all parties to be aware that monitoring is taking place and which states stipulate that only one party need know? What I'm driving at is an issue whether or not everything that goes over my company's data/voice connection is treated the same. Rules regarding wiretaps on voice connections seem to be at least articulated in most jurisdictions, but do they extend to other forms of telecoms? I ask this also because such information would be important to corporations devising security policies in which they attempt to monitor employees' electronic communications. I am not concerned with the ethical nature of monitoring communications in this set of questions: I'm involved in a discussion on that topic on another list. What I am after is either directions on getting relevant legal information or the legal information itself with information on verifying it. I would greatly appreciate any replies and I intend to eventually make this information available to one and all, but especially so to those who "chip in" their 20,000 microdollars (roughly two cents' worth). Free speech while supplies last, Dean Webb ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #113 ******************************