Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA16431; Sun, 18 May 1997 09:07:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 09:07:17 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199705181307.JAA16431@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #125 TELECOM Digest Sun, 18 May 97 09:07:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 125 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: What Constitutes a Second Residential Line? (Ed Ellers) Re: What Constitutes a Second Residential Line? (Anthony S. Pelliccio) Re: Are Cordless' as Bad as Cellulars? (Stewart Fist) Re: Are Cordless' as Bad as Cellulars? (Joel Upchurch) Smart Prepaid Telephone Cards in Canada (jfmezei2videotron.ca) Re: Network Switching (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: When Regulators Attack Area Codes (Bill Sohl) Re: When Regulators Attack Area Codes (Nils Andersson) Re: Long-Distance Access Charges Draw Scrutiny From FCC, Users (Al Varney) Internet Redirect Using SS7 -- ISPAN -- ISP Access Node (D. E. Hale) *69 Automatic Callback (Daniel Meldazis) 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: Sat, 17 May 1997 12:14:38 -0400 From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: What Constitutes a Second Residential Line? Marvin A Sirbu (sirbu+@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote: > Right now you are getting your first line for less than what it costs, > with the difference made up by long distance callers. So what you are > saying is why shouldn't you be entitled to two subsidized lines instead > of only one? Sounds greedy to me. How do you know this? For all you know, Anthony lives in a place where it's relatively easy to run the lines and therefore cheaper than average to provide service. > If the FCC were abolished, the first thing that would happen is that > prices would begin to approach actual cost, which means the price of > _both_ of your telephone lines would go up, instead of the price of only > one of them. Actually, since the ILECs do not face effective > competition, the prices would likely go up to something substantially > above cost. And, since, in the absence of an FCC to enforce > interconnection rules, no competitors would be able to get into the > local exchange market, prices would likely stay at monopoly levels > indefinitely. Are you sure that's what you want?" You're forgetting something -- actually fifty of them, the state commissions that regulate intrastate telephone rates. These are entirely capable of lowering rates, and of enforcing interconnection rules. ------------------------------ From: kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com.nospam (Anthony S. Pelliccio) Subject: Re: What Constitutes a Second Residential Line? Date: 17 May 1997 17:12:36 -0400 Organization: Ideamation, Inc. In article , Marvin A Sirbu wrote: > Right now you are getting your first line for less than what it costs, > with the difference made up by long distance callers. So what you are > saying is why shouldn't you be entitled to two subsidized lines instead > of only one? Sounds greedy to me. Sorry but I can't agree with that. The greedy ones are the LEC's and they have the FCC in their pocket. When you really examine it you can see the flaws in the FCC's argument to increase access line charges on secondary lines. While the rates for LD co's drop they don't go away all together and now they get to rape Joe subscriber once again. The administration has even come out and said that this has to be handled very carefully or else the consumer will be paying more, not less. Each month I average $70.00-$100.00 in long distance charges and you can bet they're getting more than an access line increase even if they did reduce the rate. > If the FCC were abolished, the first thing that would happen is that > prices would begin to approach actual cost, which means the price of > _both_ of your telephone lines would go up, instead of the price of > only one of them. Actually, since the ILECs do not face effective > competition, the prices would likely go up to something substantially > above cost. And, since, in the absence of an FCC to enforce > interconnection rules, no competitors would be able to get into the > local exchange market, prices would likely stay at monopoly levels > indefinitely. Are you sure that's what you want? I tend to think not. The FCC is interested in the big business and not the interests of the people. And in some regions there's full up competition -- here in RI it's looking like Nynex is going to be getting a lovely black eye ... awww ... poor Nynex. They're only worth umpteen billion. Tony Pelliccio, KD1NR kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com Boston has the combat zone, Providence *IS* an erogenous zone. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 17:31:23 +1000 From: fist@ozemail.com.au (Stewart Fist) Subject: Re: Are Cordless' as bad as Cellulars? Michael Wright (voe@telalink.net) writes: > There is no research out there that has established ANY causal > relationship between cell phones and brain tumors. Complete utter balderdash. Apparently this correspondent can't read. > And there never > will be. A cell phone operates with a transmitter power of only 3/4 of > a watt. As you read this, you are sitting in a far more powerful > electromagnetic field, the one generated by your computer monitor. So what? When viewers start jamming their heads up against the electronic guns in the back of the monitor, maybe they'll find reason to worry. Hasn't it ever occured to you that there may be differences in the frequency, pulsation, and a few other parameters. > As to cordless phones, they operate with a transmitter power of 100 > milliwatts (one-tenth of a watt) so they, too, constitute no hazard > whatsoever ... at least from the magnetic field. Right. Now you are actually starting to think. These devices are about one-sixth of an analog cordless, and about one-sixtieth of a GSM cordless. > By way of comparison, many radio stations throw off 100,000 watts ( > one million times the energy of a cordless phone) and the transmitter > personnel sit in that electromagnetic field all day, every day with no > problems. I would suggest that perhaps the invoice square law may be a factor here - also the lack of pulsation, the shielding, and a few dozen other things. And a number of studies have show an increase in problems with ham radio operators, military radio operators, military radar operators, police radar operators, merchant marine radio operators, diathermy opeators, plastic welding operators -- and a few other, I can't remember, off hand. > The cellphone / brain-tumor *scare* is just another example of Junk > Science Meets Tabloid Media. And this sort of a reaction is another example of the null that is created when the closed mind meets biomedical evidence. Stewart Fist, Technical writer and journalist. Current Australian columns: Archives of my columns are available at the Australian and also at the ABC site: Development site: Phone:+612 9416 7458 Fax: +612 9416 4582 Old Homepage: ------------------------------ From: Joel Upchurch Subject: Re: Are Cordless' as Bad as Cellulars? Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 17:20:17 -0400 Reply-To: upchurch@bellsouth.net Michael Wright wrote: > There is no research out there that has established ANY causal > relationship between cell phones and brain tumors. And there never > will be. A cell phone operates with a transmitter power of only 3/4 of > a watt. As you read this, you are sitting in a far more powerful > electromagnetic field, the one generated by your computer monitor. > By way of comparison, many radio stations throw off 100,000 watts ( > one million times the energy of a cordless phone) and the transmitter > personnel sit in that electromagnetic field all day, every day with no > problems. I don't think claims that cell phones cause brain tumors are valid either, at least I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that they are but the claim isn't absurd on the face of it. The comparisons above are invalid, because neither of them are emitting an inch away from the brain. A monitor is at least two feet away, so it would have to be over 500 times as powerful to produce the same effects. As someone pointed out the frequency may be significant also. Exposures to the same amounts of visible light, microwaves and UV light can have much different effects on human beings. Also people can vary enormously in their sensitivity to various effects. UV light may cause nothing more than a tan for one person and trigger a malignant melanoma for another. Something that has no effect on 99.9% percent of the population, may kill the thousandth person. I wonder how much it would effect the range of a cell phone to move the antenna to the bottom of the phone? It seems to me that this would reduce any effects of the phones transmissions on the brain by at least an order of magnitude. The trouble is that some lawyer would use any design change as an admission that the previous design was unsafe. Of course, even if they do cause an occasional brain tumor the health risks are down in the noise compared cell phone related automobile accidents :-). ------------------------------ From: jfmezei <[nospam]jfmezei@videotron.ca> Subject: Smart Prepaid Telephone Cards in Canada Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 19:15:22 -0500 Organization: SPC Reply-To: [nospam]jfmezei@videotron.ca I have recently realised that the prepaid cards sold by Bell Canada in Quebec and Ontario to be used on the Nortel pay phones here are the same format as those sold by other telcos in Canada (Notably BC Tel). I assume that they are also the same as those used by other North American telcos. However, a card purchased in Quebec will not work on a telephone outside Bell Canada's territory, even if it is in Canada. For instance, at the Vancouver airport, a card purchased in Quebec will not work even though the phones are the same. While I can understand the reason behind this (BC tel didn't get any money when I bought the card in Quebec), I wonder about the usefulness of such cards as they are no good when travelling, the one time when those cards have the most value. Countries such as New Zealand and Australia have card systems which are valid everywhere in their country. So the question: Does the telco get enough information from a smart card transaction to be able to rebill the issuing telco? Could BC Tel, upon inserting my Bell Canada Card into their phone, not rebill Bell Canada for the cost of the call? Is there any hope of ever having a national prepaid card system in Canada? If not, why did the telcos bother with their rather useless local-only cards? ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: Network Switching Date: 17 May 1997 18:53:09 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates Tim Russell (russell@probe.net) wrote: > Simon Edgett writes: >> For the >> duration of the call the call centre ends up paying for two trunks >> plus double the LD. Assuming the outsource partner and the call >> center use the same LD and trunk provider for the inbound circuits, is >> there an easy way to do network level switching to actually re-route >> the call at the network level to the outsource company. Current plans >> are to use AT&T US. [ . . . ] > Anyway, the system worked through touchtones -- my program sent out > a *2, I believe, to have the call sent back to the client. > Keep in mind that this was done by a very large service bureau who > is more than likely AT&T's single largest minute customer -- we broke > 25,000,000 minutes in a month while I was there, and the numbers have > risen ever since. I'm not sure if they can/will do this for just > anyone. > The feature name to mention is "Take Back and Transfer". Good luck. Investigate a CLASS feature available from some carriers over ISDN PRI called TBCT -- Two B Channel Transfer. This allows you to ask the switch to take a call which has been terminated on one of your trunks and forward it to somewhere else. You'll still pay for it, but at least your trunks are free. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "To really blow up an investment house requires Tampa Bay, Florida a human being." - Mark Stalzer +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ From: billsohl@planet.net (Bill Sohl) Subject: Re: When Regulators Attack Area Codes Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 17:45:39 GMT Organization: BL Enterprises Dave Levenson wrote: > While Parma, Ohio attempts to regulate area codes, I am reminded that > a New Jersey lawmaker, several months ago, proposed legislation which > would have made it illegal for Bell Atlantic to split a municipality > between area codes. But at least that would have been within the power of the state legislature to do so since the state legislature can impose new law(s) on the state PUC. > Nobody pointed out, in the ensuing public debate, that some New Jersey > municipalities have straddled area code boundaries for years, and > somehow, the residents all survive. My town lived for years under a split between Bell Atlantic and an independant. Neighbors separated by one street were charged as a toll call when dialing from one company area to another. That ended some time ago and the local flat rate area covers the whole town now. More recently, the town was split between area cdes 201 and 908. For an extended period of time we had permisive dialing between the two sets of CO NNX codes, but that has ended and no great outcry. Personally, I suspect we'll eventually all get to a ten digit mindset anyway within the next few years. Bill Sohl (K2UNK) billsohl@planet.net Internet & Telecommunications Consultant/Instructor Budd Lake, New Jersey ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 22:06:49 -0400 From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: When Regulators Attack Area Codes In article , Dave Levenson writes: > A Bell Atlantic spokesperson pointed out that the effect of the > proposed legislation would have been a change in the full ten-digit > telephone numbers of thousands of New Jersey residents. > Nobody pointed out, in the ensuing public debate, that some New Jersey > municipalities have straddled area code boundaries for years, and > somehow, the residents all survive. The urge for legislative relief runs deep. Do we have a messianic complex here? There have been attempts to legislate that PI=3. I am waiting for attempts to regulate gravity by legislation. Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: Long-Distance Access Charges Draw Scrutiny From FCC, Users Date: 16 May 1997 21:56:35 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , AntiSpam2091744@ mcimail.com wrote: > The "hick town" that I live in is part of a state-wide phone co-op. We > currently have a digital switch, can get internet from the Phone Co., > and they offer ISDN. My last non-subsidized phone bill was $17 for 1 > month. Very much my own opinion follows: The "rural" cost argument is usually about the cost of outside plant, which is substantially more per rural line with 1970s technology. For rural SERVICES that are forced to treat that plant (and older switches) as a 40-year investment, there are cash-flow constraints that force higher costs on a per-line basis. Some smaller companies are not bound by "uniform accounting" rules that impose those costs on larger companies, so they can indeed reduce their costs when technology permits. Cost of capital can be less for some of those companies as well. A somewhat out-of-date comparison of RBOC ("Bell") companies vs. GTE/Independents from 1989 shows the following statistics: Average local revenue: RBOC $24.00/line/month Ind. $19.58/line/month Avg. Access Charge revenue: RBOC $16.09/line/month Ind. $21.41/line/month Avg. Total monthly revenue: RBOC $48.80/line/month Ind. $52.20/line/month So independents (with GTE) charge $4.42/line/month less to their customers and collect $5.31/line/month more from the IXCs. In effect, long distance calls are "subsidizing" local service in the independent networks to a greater extent than in the RBOC networks. For IXCs required to charge based on distance (and not the originating/terminating company), the higher access charges are an extra tax placed on the IXCs, and/or recovered from Universal Access funds. Another perspective: In 1989, 50% of RBOC revenue was from local charges, vs. 37.5% for Independents. And 33% of RBOC revenue was from Access Charges, vs. 41% for Independents. I'm sure access charge reform has (or will) substantially change these statistics. Al Varney - just my opinion ------------------------------ From: dehale@onramp.net (D. E. Hale) Subject: Internet Redirect Using SS7 -- ISPAN -- ISP Access Node Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 03:04:31 GMT Organization: OnRamp Technologies, Inc.; ISP DSC Communications of Plano, TX has a new piece of equipment on the market called the ISPAN. In brief what it does is redirect calls on the trunk side of the class V switch. It terminates the calls onto itself and feeds out PRIs or D4's to modem banks. It uses the SS7 network to redirect the call away from the expensive class IV switch or a terminating CLEC class V switch. It is being designed with controls for the common modem banking equipment used today by Ascend, Cisco, USR, and Livingston. It can be used in conjunction with Litespan 2000/2012 to redirect on the lineside of a class V switch and totally redirect calls away from switching equipment to the data network. The biggest draw to the ISPAN is it is inexpensive compared to a switch. A 28,800 port model goes for about $3,500,000 and a small 1900 line one for $500,000. Cheap compared to having to expand a clogged switch. If anyone is interested in this or discussion about it, post, email, or call me. I will happily call, send information, etc. (972) 477-9303 Work E-mail is dehale@ccmail.dsccc.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 20:06:10 -0500 From: Daniel Meldazis Reply-To: danielm1@flash.net Subject: *69 Automatic Callback Pat, I have been having a bit of a problem recently with someone calling my home and when I answer, hanging up. I have tried using *69, but when I do a message from the CO tells me that I am unable to use that service to call the number. How does someone block the use of *69 from their phone line? Thanks. Dan Meldazis Bridgeview, IL [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do not think the caller is doing anything to block their number; rather, it is a situation where the telco -- in this case Ameritech -- is not receiving the data and is thus unable to give it to you. Do you also have a Caller-ID box? If so, check and see if this same caller is showing up on the box as 'outside' or 'unavailable' as opposed to 'private'. Until very recently, calls from cellular phones were showing up as 'outside' because no arrangment was in place to deliver the data to the landline telco. Now Ameritech's cellular division at least is delivering the data to Ameritech as landline company, although I do not know if Cellular One Chicago is yet doing the same thing or not. Even if the call is coming from another landline phone, there seem to be a few instances -- such as many long distance calls -- where the calling number is not available to terminating telco. That still does not preclude the use however of more 'old fashioned' methods of catching the caller using traps set in the central office. I am assuming now this more drastic approach would be used if this situation continues or gets worse. To answer your basic question, there is no way the caller can deny you the right to call back. It may be telco will refuse to tell you *what number* is being called back, but they will still complete the call if possible. Oddity: the other day someone called me in the same way, ringing my phone and then hanging up when I answered. The number was shown on the Caller-ID display as 'private'. I tried to use Call Screening and other tricks to get the number read to me with no success. Finally I decided to do *69 and call it back. Guess what? Even though the local central office refused to give me the number, it was a one-way outgoing only line so when my CO attempted to put through the call the distant CO responded that, 'the number you have dialed, xxx-xxxx is not in service for incoming calls ...' so I got the information anyway. Meanwhile, adding the 'last call received' to my Call Screening still got me protests from my own CO that 'the number is a private entry', meaning it would not tell it to me. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #125 ******************************