Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA17319; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 22:22:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 22:22:47 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199706030222.WAA17319@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #144 TELECOM Digest Mon, 2 Jun 97 22:21:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 144 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telephone Franchises Instead of Monopolies/Competition? (Louis Raphael) Spam with 800 Numbers - The List (Jay R. Ashworth) AT&T 35-Cent Payphone Surcharge (Dave Levenson) WorldCom Dispute In Indiana (Ed Ellers) More on LA Phone Outage (Tad Cook) Another New Area Code To Be Introduced in 310 Region In 1999 (Mike King) Beth Arnold Revenge Spam (Beth Arnold) In Poor Health Again (TELECOM Digest Editor) 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: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 13:02:49 EDT From: Louis Raphael Subject: Telephone Franchises Instead of Monopolies/Competition? This is my idea for creating a compromise between regulated monopolies and free-for-all competition in the local telephone market. I've been thinking of it for a while, and finally wrote it out in an evening - so there may still be a few inconsistencies. I'd appreciate getting feedback, etc. Note that to e-mail me, you must remove the "spammy" from my e-mail address. I hate forging my address, but in this age of spam, I don't have much choice. --L --------------- A New Proposal for Competition in the Telephone Industry: Franchises This proposal is based on two principles: (1) Generally speaking, free-market competition is a good thing; (2) There are some situations, however, where physical constraints override (1). Some public utilities, such as telephones, are cases in point. (The most extreme case I can think of is railroad tracks.) The examples referred to in this post are principally related to the North American situation, although they could apply anywhere. Previous to any sort of competition in the field of telephony, telephone services were generally controlled by the "Bell" companies, with some oversight by Federal and Provincial/State regulators. This system resulted in an good communications network, but for one point: long-distance charges have been, and continue to be, way overpriced. The theory behind this has been that local service (considered almost a necessity), is subsidized by the high charges for long distance services (considered a luxury). This wasn't necessarily a bad idea, except for the fact that it has resulted in absurdly high costs for long-distance services, which continue even with the advent of long-distance competition. We might hope for some help from the regulators, but they tend to be partial to the interests of the telephone companies over those of the consumers. It is also somewhat distasteful for a community (or even a whole province/state) to be "tied" to one provider of telephonic services, essentially in perpetuity. Another problem has been that, with guaranteed profits (here in Canada, the CRTC almost directly determines the Bell's profits), there is relatively little incentive to offer high initial-cost services in remote regions, such as Internet services. The alternative so far considered has been to allow competition. Mostly for technical reasons (I would say, regardless of the legalese involved), this was first attempted with long-distance services. The results have not been up to expectations, although they haven't been disastrous, either. Considering the true cost of providing long-distance services (as evidenced by the cost of Internet bandwidth), the cost of long-distance services is still too high. Also, new "features" have arrived, mostly in the area of fraud: slamming, billing irregularities, false advertising, 10XXX scams and other well known variations. Local-service competition is still in its infancy and may yet remain that way. While it is practical, and even desirable, to have multiple networks between cities, running multiple cables to every home is certainly no easy task. The building of the current telephone network was the work of a generation. The technicalities of interconnections between different providers of local telephone service are still complex, and will probably remain that way for the foreseeable future. ``Competition,'' so far, has usually meant the reselling of ILEC services, co-location of equipment, taking over of subscriber pairs, and so on. Even if, in time, technical limitations were overcome to a greater extent, there would still remain the problem of the final loop - from the Central Office to the customer. There is only so much room on the utility poles and utility tunnels. Telephone service is vital to modern society, which cannot easily function without it. Unreliable telephone service, which is fast becoming a side-effect of the current situation, is likely to be alot more costly in terms of lost business and annoyance than overpriced ``Ma Bell'' services. So far, the regulated monopoly model vs. the competitive model, have been seen as the only options. This is not so. It should be possible to set up a ``local franchise'' model. The franchise model would divide the country into telephone service ``blocks,'' which would be reasonable districts of subscribers. These would likely correspond somewhat to municipal boundaries, although one ``block'' might include more than one municipality, in those cases where municipal boundaries are somewhat artificial, or where municipalities would be too small to provide a viable base. A good basis for divisions would probably be current telephone exchanges, with the grouping together of several exchanges in one block, where necessary to provide a reasonable-sized pool of subscribers. Only one local telephone entity would be allowed to operate in a ``block'' at a given time. This entity would be chosen on a competitive basis however, unlike the present system of regulated monopoly. The residents of the district would be organized into a telephone cooperative (much as many telephone cooperatives are organized today). From this perspective, they could choose to either run their own service (as the cooperatives do today), or contract out the operation to a telephone company. The telephone bill would include two portions - a portion for capital expenses (a new switch, for example), which would be paid and owned by the subscribers, and operating expenses, which would be the cost of the contract with the telephone company. A telephone committee would be responsible for making capital purchase regulations, and for negociating the contract with the telephone company. The actual result of this idea is the devolving of regulatory authority to the local level. This committee would also negociate with surrounding communities for the provision of local toll-free zones, and perform other similar duties. Every telephone district would be required to provide one or more Interconnection Point(s) for long-distance companies to connect to. Possibly, this Interconnection Point could also be used for other purposes, such as the interconnection of cellular, PCS, and surrounding community networks. By keeping the size of the ``telephone communities'' large enough, long-distance companies would have an advantage in connecting to as many communities as possible. Not all long-distance companies would connect to all communities, as is the case today, but the problem could be solved as it now, by reselling the services of other carriers for that purpose. National/Provincial/State regulators would have a role in ensuring fair play in the long-distance market, as well as acting to guarantee a minimum level of service to all communities nationwide (perhaps by providing a ``minimum'' contract for all telephone companies to provide to all districts), and having the power to intervene in situations where the services provided are not adequate. I think that such a system could work. It might be difficult to set up in the short-term, but would probably be viable in the long- term. Proof of this is provided by the independents that have endured throughout the ``dark ages'' of Bell hegemony, and remain active to this day. Here in Canada, they vary in size from the City of Thunder Bay Telephone Department, down to single-exchange telcos with two-three pages of telephone-book listings, along with a variety of unusual situations (I think that Abitibi-Price operates some of the telephones in Iroquois Falls). A much better, and even more encouraging example, is the situation in Iowa, where telephone services are provided by a collection of independent telephone companies and cooperatives, which associate as "Iowa Network Services" - a system which has resulted in Iowa being among the first states to have state-wide availability of Internet services, for example. Converting to such a system would not be easy. It would probably best to do it over a period of time, ``liberating'' districts to their subscribers patchwork-style, and learning from those mistakes before the next batch. Some temporary regulations defining concepts like local-calling area might be necessary until committees begin negotiating among themselves. It may also be a good idea to introduce the committees some time before ``liberation.'' One of the major problems that I foresee would be the need for a system of checks-and-balances to prevent telephone companies from taking over committees - again, there may be roles for the regulator to play here. Also to be solved is the issue of compensating incumbent telcos for their investments in the local infrastructure - a problem which would probably produce a great increase in employment for accountants. The expectation is that the ILEC would generally remain in position, being in a situation where they know the local area, and their employees are familiar with the local network (a tangible benefit not to be discounted). This is fine, and should probably even be encouraged. The idea is to provide the *option* and the *choice* for residents to terminate their ``servitude'' to a given telco, if they feel that the service is abominable (or overpriced). In other words, to allow the carving of new independents from Bell (I'm using "Bell" when I should probably be using "ILEC") territory, where the situation warrants, and as a competitive incentive for ILECs to provide good, reasonably-priced service. Louis ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Spam With 800 Numbers - The List Date: 1 Jun 1997 21:17:26 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates [ Article crossposted from comp.dcom.telecom.tech,alt.dcom.telecom ] [ Author was Gordon S. Hlavenka O- ] [ Posted on Fri, 30 May 1997 18:19:06 -0500 ] Steven Lichter wrote: > The following number will tell you how to become a Fortune 500 > company; 800-811-2141, you must also put in the ID 13684 so that > you will get all the information that you need... Here are some other numbers guaranteed to help you live a better life through financial enrichment, religious enlightenment, a better diet, wonderful consumer products, or any number of other methods. I'm sure these are all reputable firms, as the mail I received from them was quite sincere. I know that you are all busy people out there, but perhaps the next time you're at an airport payphone with an hour to kill you might want to call them all, so that you could be assured of a perfect life! (800) numbers: 259-7003 X350 275-1913 294-9638 322-1669 X5460 541-3010 press 1, then X118 597-2824 685-8010 687-0600 X348277 779-8461 783-7363 X728 784-7282 810-4244 817-5192 935-5171 X5462 942-9304 X21154 995-0796 X5707 (888) numbers: 403-0307 424-3453 800-4197 There's also an exciting fax-on-demand system at (800) 729-0962 And a PAGER at (800) 759-8888 PIN 128-4050 Gordon S. Hlavenka www.crashelex.com gordon@crashelex.com Grammar and spelling flames welcome. Some of us still think it's important. 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 ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T 35-Cent Payphone Surcharge Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 19:38:55 EDT From: Dave Levenson Organization: Westmark, Inc. Reply-To: dave@westmark.com An AT&T Press Release dated May 30, 1997 announced that AT&T is about to begin charging consumers an extra 35 cents per call for all non-coin calls originating at payphones. This includes calls dialed to 1-800-CALL-ATT, 10288+, or unadorned 0+ calls from payphones which route calls to AT&T by default. The charge applies whether the payphone is owned by a local exchange carrier or an independent payphone provider. They state that this charge is to recover the amount that they are now required to pay to the owner of the payphone for such calls. They also mention in the release that they are attempting to take legal action against the FCC order requiring such compensation. Finally, they state that because this amount is passed along to payphone owners, AT&T makes no profit from it. Several interesting points come to mind: AT&T has traditionally paid a percentage of its revenue from payphone calls to the payphone owner (if it is an independent payphone provider) or directly to the property-owner where the phone is located (for utility-owned payphones). The percentage varies, but for our small COCOT route, averages more than 35 cents per call. They have, for all intents and purposes, discontinued these commission payments. Now, the FCC says AT&T (and other carriers) must compensate the payphone owner at 35 cents per call. This is less than they used to pay -- but now AT&T will pass this cost along to the consumer, even though they never did that before! So AT&T is making no profit on it? The same FCC order which mandates payments to payphone owners removes utility-owned payphones from the subsidized rate-base. This means that the rates paid by consumers for local telephone service should no-longer include a subsidy for the payphones operated by the local exchange carrier. It also removes this subsidy from the access charge paid to the LEC by AT&T and other inter-exchange carriers. AT&T's costs, for every call, payphone or not, should be reduced ... are they passing this reduction in their costs along to consumers? This move puts AT&T in much the same position as Cleartel, AMNEX, Opticom, Telecom-USA, and other operator service providers. The amounts vary, but most of the other OSP's apply per-call surcharges which are paid to, or shared with, the payphone owner or location owner. AT&T has, for years, advertised that the way to avoid these surcharges is to use the AT&T network. Not any more! As I see it, this is not a revenue-neutral move by AT&T. In fact, they are paying payphone operators less than they used to, they are paying the LECS less than they used to, and they are charging the consumer more than they used to. What they are doing, I believe, is attempting to swing public opinion behind their legal battle to override the FCC payphone order. They would prefer to continue to use payphones without having to pay -- that is, they would prefer that the FCC allow them to continue stealing the use of the payphones. After all, who are the largest payphone-owners? Who stands to receive the lion's share of the per-call compensation? The RBOC's, of course! And who is AT&T now fighting every step of the way over the long distance market? Those same RBOC's. What do you think? Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. Voice: 908 647 0900 Web: http://www.westmark.com Stirling, NJ, USA Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 14:59:50 -0400 From: Ed Ellers Subject: WorldCom Dispute In Indiana The Associated Press reported this weekend that WorldCom Network Services has obtained a court order to prevent angry landowners from cutting its lines. This is the latest round of a dispute that began after WorldCom began installing a 200-mile fiber-optic cable through Indiana (from a point near Terre Haute to one near Cincinnati, passing south of Indianapolis) following an old Gulf Oil pipeline. Most of the landowners along the route accepted a standard offer of $250 from WorldCom, but some were able to negotiate for far higher payments. When some landowners in Morgan and Vigo counties held out for more money, WorldCom bypassed them by running the cable along county roads; county courts then ruled that that land was private property and WorldCom was trespassing. The landowners' attorneys then advised their clients that they could dig up the WorldCom line starting Friday; WorldCom rushed to Federal court for an injunction after that. The story quotes a resident of Morgan County as describing WorldCom's actions as theft, and a WorldCom attorney as describing the landowners's suits as extortion. ------------------------------ Subject: More on LA Phone Outage Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 19:45:06 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Pac Bell works to restore telephone service in Los Angeles, Beverly Hills LOS ANGELES (AP) -- About a quarter of the people who lost telephone service in Los Angeles and Beverly Hills over the weekend were back in touch by Sunday afternoon, a Pacific Bell spokesman said. An estimated 2,000 customers lost service Saturday when a backhoe snagged on cable at a construction site, said Pac Bell spokesman David Dickstein. About 500 of those were restored by 4 p.m., and Dickstein estimated that the company would have 80 percent restored by 6 p.m. Full service was not expected to completed until about midnight. The accident occurred at a west Los Angeles construction site at 7:15 a.m. Saturday, when an independent contractor caught a backhoe on a copper cable, and accidentally stretched the cable 20 or 30 feet, Dickstein said. Pacific Bell originally thought that about 1,800 feet of cable would need to be replaced, but it ended up being only 300 feet, Dickstein said. Beverly Hills and Los Angeles police departments had beefed up patrols in the affected area, in case any of those who lost phone service needed to report an emergency, authorities said. A Los Angeles police dispatcher said Sunday there had been no unusual problems. Those needing assistance were asked to go to Fire Station 58 at 1556 S. Robertson Blvd. Late Sunday, nobody had come by the station requesting help, said Los Angeles Fire Department spokesman Bob Collis. Dickstein said the damage done -- including the cost -- would be the responsibility of the construction company and its contractor. He said he did not know the name of the company. "What it comes down to is that the construction company, or the independent contractor did something they shouldn't have done," Dickstein said. "We haven't finalized our investigation but all fingers point to that source." ------------------------------ From: Mike King Subject: Another New Area Code To Be Introduced in 310 Region In 1999 Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 11:21:13 PDT ----- Forwarded Message ----- Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 18:33:25 -0700 From: sqlgate@pactel.COM Subject: Another New Area Code To Be Introduced in 310 Region In 1999 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 30, 1997 FOR MORE INFORMATION: Bonnie Ward (916) 972-3019 Another New Area Code To Be Introduced in 310 Region In 1999 Escalating Telephone Number Demand Pushes Relief Date Up By One Year Editor's Note: The following news release was issued by the California-Nevada Code Administration, an independent group that coordinates statewide area code relief planning on behalf of the telecommunications industry. Final decisions on area code policy issues are made by the California Public Utilities Commission. Pacific Bell reprints such news releases as a public service to our customers. LOS ANGELES --Due to increased demand for telephone numbers, another area code will be introduced in portions of southwestern Los Angeles County that now use the 310 area code. The new area code is expected to be in use as early as May 1999. This area code introduction will come 2 1/2 years after the 562 area code split off from the 310 area code in January of this year and one year earlier than previous projections due to unprecedented number demand. "The good news is that not everyone will have to change their area code in 1999," said California Code Administrator Doug Hescox, who coordinates area code relief planning statewide for the telecommunications industry. "Only those customers who kept their 310 area code last time will be affected this time around. No 562 area code customers will have to change their area code. "Of course, the downside is that anytime you introduce a new area code, it inconveniences customers. But there's no choice if we hope to meet the need for new phone numbers," Hescox said. The 310 area code serves the southwestern portion of Los Angeles County, while the 562 area code now serves the southeastern part of Los Angeles County and small portions of Orange County. That area code split occurred on Jan. 25, 1997 and is still in the "get acquainted" dialing period, which allows customers to use either the old 310 or new 562 to reach customers in the new 562 area code. Customers need to begin using the correct area code on July 26, 1997. The 562 area code is expected to accommodate number growth for about 10 years. Originally, the newly split 310 area code was not expected to need another new area code added until the year 2000. "However, the demand for telecommunications services far exceeded the industry's expectations, so we've had to move the next area code introduction date up by one year," Hescox said. Hescox said the skyrocketing demand for new phone numbers is being seen not only in Los Angeles, but across the state. "California now has 15 area codes -- more than any other state -- Another New Area Code For 310 In 1999 -- and will need to add another eight by the end of 1998 to keep pace with demand," Hescox said. Two primary factors driving that increased demand are local telephone service competition and the high-technology explosion. "With the onset of widespread competition in California's local telephone market in 1996, each new provider requires its own supply of phone numbers. In California, we have more companies entering local telephone competition than any other state. Further, the rising demand for fax machines, pagers, cellular phones, modems for Internet access and other high-tech equipment also is increasing the demand for phone numbers," he said. A telecommunications industry group representing more than 30 companies is currently developing and evaluating various options for area code relief in the 310 area code. Geographic splits have been the traditional means of providing area code relief in California. Another option, known as an overlay, may also be considered in the 310 area code provided several conditions are met, according to a December 1996 ruling by the California Public Utilities Commission. In an overlay, existing customers keep their area code and the new area code is given to people in the area who request new phone numbers. In a geographic split, the existing area code is divided with part of the area keeping the existing area code and part receiving a new area code. Under California law, public participation and comment is obtained before the industry submits a proposed area code relief plan to the California Public Utilities Commission and administrators at Bell Communications Research (Bellcore), the organization that administers the North American Numbering Plan. Hescox said a series of meetings will be held before December 1997 to seek public comment and input on potential options for the 310 area code. Locations, dates and times of the public meetings will be announced at a later time. Boundaries for the new area code, as well as the actual three-digit number, will be announced in 1998. The 310 area code serves customers in the southwestern portion of Los Angeles County. Some of the communities in this area are: San Pedro, Wilmington, Compton, Torrance, Redondo Beach, El Segundo, Santa Monica and Malibu and most of Gardena, Culver City,West Los Angeles and Beverly Hills. ------------ Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ From: Beth Arnold Subject: Beth Arnold Revenge Spam Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 20:19:42 -0400 Hello, my name is Elisabeth Arnold. As you may or may not know, I have been the victim of a massive revenge spam. I work at a small ISP in New Jersey. Recently, I pulled a spammers account for repeated violation of our acceptable use policy. This was tw weeks ago. That weekend a message was sent out by "Beth Arnold" with a bunch of gibberish and a 200k wav file of "animal sounds". This weekend, two messages were sent. One participants in the net-abuse groups which included a 300k wav file of recordings from the activity menu of an Audix voice mail system and another to participants in the comp.* and rec.* groups. You may very well have received the message below. > Call BETH ARNOLD at 1-800-450-5766 to order a list of email addresses and > bulk email software. > If you got this message, congratulations. You are on list of email > addresses that we sell. You will receive many more messages like this > one. This message was obvious flame bait and it worked very well. I received 200 calls to my 800 number before disconnecting it. My mail server was inundated with mail bombs, returns, and complaints. My http ports were SYN attacked. And I was "ping stormed". UUNet is useless in tracking this person down. They just don't care. I would appreciate any help I can get. Thank you, Beth Arnold betharnold@cfjf.dyn.ml.org ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: In Poor Health Again Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 10:00:00 EDT I am sorry to report that once again my health has become a problem and I *may* -- stress is on 'may' -- have to go into the hospital again. I'll know in a day or so what is going on, but it appears my heart is once again getting a bit irregular. At least it feels that way to me. *If* this happens, and *if* the stay is prolonged, then for all intents and purposes the Digest will be 'off line' until whenever. Of course I might not come out of the hospital at all, and in that case I guess someone else will take this over or just end it. I've not added any new subscribers to the mailing list for a couple weeks now until I could see whether or not I was going to be in a position to send them anything much. My problem may be just 'in my head'; I do not feel at all well tonight however. Over the next day or two I will say more on the subject. For now, I just wanted everyone to have an idea where things are at. Kind regards to all, PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #144 ******************************