Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id BAA01363; Sat, 3 May 1997 01:51:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 01:51:08 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199705030551.BAA01363@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #108 TELECOM Digest Sat, 3 May 97 01:51:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 108 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Raises Rates Due to Coin Phones/Telecom Act (Danny Burstein) BellSouth, Payphones and AOSlime (Mark J. Cuccia) Redundancy Schemes for ATM vs TDM (Jim Holland) Area 703 Calls (Carl Moore) Employment Opportunity: [Austin, TX] Applications Engineer (J. Stroud) FCC Universal Service Hearing to be Cybercast Online! (Monty Solomon) What's the Status of the Lawsuit Against Destiny Telecom? (Liz Ashraph) 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: Fri, 2 May 1997 10:18:03 EDT From: Danny Burstein Subject: AT&T Raises Rates Due to Coin Phones/Telecom Act The Telecom Act, which blindsided far too many folk.who.should.have. known.better, who only picked up on the CDA portion, also stated that IXCs would have to reimburse coin phone owners for calls made from their equipment. This became a big issue as customers switched more and more to using calling cards/1-800/888/collect methods to place their calls, thus using the coin phone (in the opinion of the owner), for "free". (In Texas, the local version of the Public utilities Commission has, in fact, authorized payphones to charge an access fee, generally being $0.25, for calls to 1-800/888. Hmm, can anyone advise if this also applies to collect calls?). (Coin phones operated by the local telcos got, so to speak, 'paid off' through the [roughly] $0.03/minute kickba^h^h^h access charge the IXCs paid the local carriers) Anyway, the Telecom Act ordered that the IXCs give money back to the COCOTS as well. Two plans were proposed -- one with a $0.35 payment per call, the other through a monthly flat rate of [mumble -- something like $35 ... sorry, don't have the rules in front of me]. We had some pretty extensive discussions in TELECOM Digest as to how this would be worked out, including the suggestion that various places would _block_ incoming 1-800 calls from coin phones since they might have to pay extra for them ... Well, about a month ago we saw MCI's response, which was to absorb the extra costs in its general 1-800/888 service and raise all its listed (incoming) rates a couple of percent. And today's {Wall Street Journal} (01-May-1997, p. C-9) has AT&T doing the same. To quote: Notice to AT&T Business Long DIstance Customers AT&T will file tariff revisions with the FCC to increase domestic Business Interstate Inbound Services rates by 7%. Additionally, domestic Business Interstate Outbound Service rates and Business International rates will increase by 2%. These rates are scheduled to become effective May 1, 1997. These increases result from the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which required the FCC to develop a payphone compensation plan for all calls made from payphones. As a result of FCC action, Inter-Exchange carriers are required to pay payphone providers for calls completed [1] on their payphones. [1] Hmm, I thought it was just calls that _originate_ from payphones. Does this mean that if I use payphones at home and work, that I'll get paid each time someone calls me????? hmmmmmmm Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 17:40:09 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: BellSouth, Payphones and AOSlime I've frequently mentioned in the Digest that, IMO, BellSouth is probably the most customer-friendly LEC in the US and Canada. They also recently received the J.D.Powers award. BellSouth has their AreaPlus plan which 'monthly-flat-rates' _all_ calls within ~40 miles within the same LATA ... and their Complete Choice plan for any/all "Vertical Services" (Call Waiting, CW-Deluxe, Caller-ID, 3-Way Calling, etc) at a single fixed monthly price. Under the optional Complete Choice plan, if a new service (such as CW-Deluxe) becomes available in your serving switch, you can add it to your line/account, at _NO_ extra charge, neither one-time, nor an increased recurring monthly charge! BellSouth offers 24-hour/7-day Business Office service (at least for residential), although there may be times when one has to wait on hold for a while if the reps are busy with other customers. Some BellSouth 'traditional' tariffed local/EAS calling areas (single monthly flat-rate) can be _QUITE_ large (i.e. Atlanta metro). I'm referring to the 'basic/traditional' local area, not AreaPlus, nor state-specific plans such as Louisiana's "LOS" (Local Optional Service). Those optional plans can increase the size of the local (free) or heavily discounted intra-LATA toll dialing area. For the most part, I find BellSouth's Business Office rep's, Repair rep's, and intra-LATA (TOPS) Operators to be friendly and informed. (Of course, I did have some problems with new NPA's not being properly loaded in time, into the translation tables of local #1AESS offices, back in 1996 and some already this year). Recently, I've found BellSouth's Business Office rep's to be quite helpful and understanding in removing strange AOSlime and other like PAY-per-call charges from a bill when there is a dispute. Back in February, I was receiving a few calls from the Orleans Parish (county) Prison, according to my Caller-ID box. The Sheriff's Dept and Parish Prison, etc. are located in the "Broadmoor" wirecenter of the New Orleans ratecenter. ("Broadmoor", 504-82x, was a new wirecenter in 1962, in the mid-city area, carved out of adjacent SxS wirecenters, and it was a #5XB [also serving TWX], until cut to #5ESS in Sept. 1987). The numbers displayed on my Caller-ID box were 504-82x-9xxx or 504-82x-8xxx. Traditionally (prior to BVA and LIDB), the -9xxx and -8xxx line number ranges have been reserved for coin/pay/public telephones/lines. The name part of the ID box displayed "PAY PHONE". I knew these calls were coming from the local jail, since I had a voicemail message left one morning, from someone wanting to be bailed out. My outgoing message for voicemail does NOT include the words "YES" or "OKAY". When I got home, I saw the "PAY PHONE" and 504-82x-8/9xxx number on my ID box at the time the voicemail message was left. A few days later, I received a call into my cellphone (since my home phone is forwarded first to my cellphone), and I kept saying "Hello, Hello, Hello". I'd heard some background noise, and then an automated voice saying "You have a collect call from Orleans Parish Prison from ---". Needless to say, I hit the 'end' button RIGHT AWAY on my cellphone. When I got back home fifteen minutes later, I had ANOTHER call from 504-82x-8/9xxx, "PAYPHONE". And there were a few other calls from "PAYPHONE" at 504-82x-8/9xxx for about two weeks, but nothing left into my voicemail nor rolled over to my cellular. On EVERY one of these calls displaying as such on my Caller-ID box, I checked with the Business Office who told me that they were listed with the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Dept. or Orleans Parish Prison. I explained to the Business Office to flag my account so that if some AOSlime tried to bill me local collect charges (possibly with any HUGE surcharges) that such charges were going to be DISPUTED. I also called up the Sheriff's Office and requested that such calls be investigated and/or halted. The "telecom" manager said that he could program my number to be 'blocked' from being dialed from the prison pay phones. I recently received my monthly bill from BellSouth, with a 94-cent charge on a page labelled Integretel/KR&K. The originating number was 504-82x-8/9xxx, and the date of the one-minute 'collect' call was for the one which 'hit' my voicemail. I called up BellSouth right away, and they told me that I wasn't going to have to pay the charge as it was already in dispute (!), although it would be 'on my account' until the dispute could be investigated. The rep was quite helpful and said that if such charges appeared in the future to call them up right away if I wished to dispute them! BTW, after calling up the Sheriff's Office's "telecom" department and being told that my number could be 'blocked' from being called from their prison payphones, I had NO more such incoming calls from these 504-82x-xxxx "PAYPHONE" numbers on my Caller-ID box. HOWEVER ... BellSouth has sunk itself in ANOTHER way, and this involves their OWN payphones. Remember that last fall, I prepared an article on how (most) BellSouth public coin payphones were "COCOT-ized" in that they weren't using central office coin control/detection nor Bell-TOPS/AT&T-OSPS ACTS/Operator coin control/detection -- i.e. they were thus now being interfaced with the c/o like a COCOT with internal chips. (Actually, in Summer 1993 they began retrofitting their coinphones with COCOT-like chips, but the c/o or TOPS/OSPS still did traditional coin control. The Summer 1993 thru Fall 1996 period was a 'hybrid' method of BellSouth telco coin phone operation). Even under the 'full COCOT-like' interface, the BellSouth coinphones were still routing 0+ inTRA-LATA local or toll to BellSouth TOPS. Local/EAS calls billed to card/collect/3d-pty (via BellSouth TOPS) here in Louisiana are $1.00 FLAT (unlimited time). There is the 75-cent 'surcharge' plus the 25-cent charge for the quarter you would have dropped in the phone. This even applies to full customer dialed/keyed automated calls, but the entire charge is flat, unlike some/most AOSlime and even _AT&T_ or MCI/Sprint/etc. handled local calls billed to a card which charge by the minute. However, last week, Stanley Cline (roamer1@pobox.com) alerted me to the fact that BellSouth payphones (with the cocot-like interface) in northern Georgia were sending 0+ inTRA-LATA traffic (both local and toll) to some strange AOSlime! I wanted to test if such was happening here in Louisiana. Only problem is that MOST all payphones in New Orleans are now actual COCOT's rather than BellSouth. Yesterday, I did have a chance to test a BellSouth payphone (with cocot-like interface), and SURE ENOUGH, dialing 0+ten-digits in the LATA (whether local or toll) caused the payphone to dial out some 950-xxxx or 800/888- access number. The automated voice in the phone's chips were stating "please wait" while the payphone touchtoned out other identification tones to the AOSlime (just like most any sleaze COCOT using sleaze AOSlime). Both Stan and I have determined that the AOSlime is "TelTrust" (whoever the heck they are). However, this AOSlime for BellSouth payphones is INDICATING ITSELF AS BELLSOUTH! Their rates include some STRANGE AND EXPENSIVE Surcharges, even for LOCAL calls billed to card/etc! When I quizzed her, she admitted that she wasn't really BellSouth, but that BellSouth had contracted them. BTW, TelTrust's CIC code is 10(10)485. But when I dial 10(10)485-1-700-555-4141, I get "Thank you for choosing BellSouth" rather than identification as TelTrust. This is NOT the same voice as the REAL BellSouth "thank you for using/choosing BellSouth" voice when using REAL BellSouth TOPS or Toll switches. This is unforgiveable. I know that BellSouth has to compete with COCOT vendors for location/property owners, and I know that there is the new payphone deregulation. BellSouth has also put their public/coin/pay telephones under a separate subsidiary. But for BellSouth to send the general public to AOSlime rather than genuine BellSouth TOPS for 0+ intraLATA is HORRIBLE. (BTW, A single-0 by itself from the phones still route to the REAL BellSouth operator). BellSouth DOES have a CIC-code for using the real BellSouth toll or TOPS services (on a per-call basis) if another carrier is chosen as the primary inTRA-LATA Equal Access fg.D toll carrier in those states where this is happening. The CIC-code is 101-5124+. It also works in those states where BellSouth is still the only choice for primary inTRA-LATA fg.D E/A toll (altho' 10(10)288+ for AT&T, 10(10)222 for MCI, etc. can be used to bypass BellSouth). And when using BellSouth 'cocot-ized/AOSlimed' payphones, 101-5124+0+ten-digits inTRA-LATA _DOES_ route to traditional BellSouth TOPS, with its TARIFFED less expensive rates. I would NEVER have thought that BellSouth would have allowed one of its divisions or subsidiaries to stoop so low as to route calls via AOSlime while still telling the customer that the service is BellSouth! Since real/traditional BellSouth TOPS is the most economical carrier for local/EAS calls billed to (LEC-issued) card when at a coinphone and not wanting to use coins, I will _ALWAYS_ dial 101-5124-0+ for local/EAS, and I hope others who live in or travel through BellSouth territory will do the same as well. (Note that I say LEC-issued card, as BellSouth and AT&T have cancelled the mutual card-honoring arrangement for AT&T-issued cards for BellSouth handled inTRA-LATA calls). And for inTRA-LATA _TOLL_, I plan to (and usually do) route/bill my call via AT&T (or sometimes Sprint or MCI), and haven't for the past seven years via BellSouth! Stan Cline also reports to me the following additional information: "BellSouth is still routing (0+ten-digits inTRA-LATA local and toll) calls from their Nortel Millenium "smart" payphones, **and** from the blue charge-a-call phones (and the desk-type phones in hotels) to TOPS. I don't know if the Nortel phones just aren't programmed yet, or what." "And the agreement for BellSouth calling cards to work in AT&T's card-reader phones (one can dial 1-800-Call-ATT/1-800-321-0288 and bill to a BellSouth card, but canNOT swipe the card in the phone itself.) According to AT&T, BELLSOUTH, NOT AT&T, canceled THAT agreement!" I haven't really seen the blue "charge-a-call" Bell phones in some time. They were quite in vogue here in New Orleans in the early 1980's, when South Central Bell's payphones were still "ground-start/coin-first". Around 1984/85, Jefferson Parish and Orleans Parish began to introduce 911 service and SCBell started changing their payphones to "Dial-tone-first/loop-start". Therefore, there wasn't really a need for as many blue "Credit" phones as there had been. But for the most part, blue "Credit" phones are still "dumb" phones on a standard loop with 1+ toll restrictions in the c/o. I also have never seen a Nortel Millenium "super" payphone in the New Orleans area, whether from BellSouth or from a COCOT company. I haven't been out to the Airport in _YEARS_, but the last time I was there around 1990 or so, Bell had some 'super' payphones which were standard single-slot WECO housings retrofitted with a card-swipe, touch-a-carrier speed dial buttons, and an LCD-readout. Various types of mag-cards could be inserted including LEC-issued cards, LD-carrier-issued cards, or 'commercial' (Visa, MC, AMEX, Discovery, Diners Club, etc) credit cards, etc. These phones had modem/chips inside, but they were also coin-controlled/detected in the traditional way by the network (c/o, TOPS/OSPS-ACTS, etc). They also had a way to access a separate credit-card validation database. I don't know if BellSouth has changed over to Nortel manufactured 'super' payphones at the New Orleans International Airport (Moisant/MSY) or any other major tourist/convention centers. I also haven't really seen many AT&T-CardCaller phones (the ones with the video screen instruction readout) lately, nor the desk-mounted version of such AT&T phones at hotels lately. That doesn't mean they aren't around, but I haven't been looking lately. As for mag-swipes, there is special encoded information in the mag-stripe on the back of the card. AT&T still accepts LEC-issued cards when calls are placed (10(10)288)-0+ or 800-CALL-ATT/800-3210-ATT from such phones, and the card number is entered at the bong or quoted to the operator. But maybe the mag-stripe encoding indicates BellSouth at such phones, and the internals of the phone reject the card in that manner. The BellSouth 'super' payphones _do_ accept an AT&T-card in the mag-swipe, and it causes the phone to dial-out 10(10)288+0+, whether the called number is local or toll, inTRA-LATA or inTER-LATA, thus putting the call via the AT&T network. I also called up BellSouth public phone Business Office (557-COIN =2646 from former South Central Bell; 780-2175 from former Southern Bell ... these are _not_ dialable as such from _outside_ of the nine-state area), to voice my displeasure at the new AOSlime situation from BellSouth's phones. The rep I spoke with gave me _three_ different conflicting stories or situations as to what was now happening. Finally, when I told her that I was going to complain to the La.PSC and the FCC, and post something on the Internet, she told me that "this shouldn't happen on inTRA-LATA calls, only on inTER-LATA calls if the location owner requested it, and that Public Phone Repair Service should be notified that the phones were 'misprogrammed'." I don't know if that was really the case ... I think that BellSouth thought they could get something over on the general public, but at least we now know about 101-5124+0+. But in most _other_ traditional service offerings, BellSouth is still (IMO) the most customer-friendly local telco in North America. 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- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Someone I know here in Skokie has installed a COCOT outside their place of business. They asked my advice on how it should be programmed, and actually took my advice. I think it provides pretty decent service, and it seems to be getting a lot more business than the three Ameritech payphones nearby. The Ameritech payphones are at the other end of the building, in an area that is quite dark at night. They are not lighted. They sit directly under a pigeon roost and are constantly filthy with pigeon droppings. The switchooks and tone pads are frequently in poor working order. On the other hand, the COCOT sits alone, several feet away in an area on the sidewalk well-lighted at night by the flourescent signs at the place of business. In addition, the COCOT itself is lighted, via a small tube under the plastic shell on the top of the container. I found it interesting that you can operate a certain type of flourescent bulb on low-voltage (like about 9-10 volts output from a transformer which is plugged in a regular 110 AC line in the place of business). The phone is programmed as follows: Local area (Skokie, Evanston, Morton Grove, Niles, Wilmette, Glenview, Park Ridge, and Golf, Illinois, all 847 points) 30 cents for five minutes. Also Chicago-Newcastle (in 773, but local) 30 cents for five minutes. The Ameritech phones charge 35 cents for initial deposit. Further north points in 847 range from 40-45-50 cents for five minutes depending on how far north. All of 773 (except Newcastle, mentioned above) and 312 -- in other words, all of Chicago -- is fifty cents for five minutes. Ameritech gets between 45-75 cents for those calls. The west suburbs in 630 plus most of 708 is 50 cents for five minutes. The southern part of 708 is 55-60 cents for five minutes. Long distance is programmed (and the phone proudly indicates this on a sign attached) to be one dollar (coins of course, not calling card) for three minutes anywhere in the continental USA. Additional minutes are 25 cents each. Canadian area codes plus 808/907 are set for $2.00 for the first minute and fifty cents per minute after that. Area 809 and its various split-offs are all blocked -- calls not allowed. Calls to 800/888 are allowed at no charge, although the owner will be compensated eventually at whatever rate is decided. The phone is attached to a 'coin line' which according to Ameritech (a) 'fraud- proofs' the phone against incoming collect charges, 800 charge back type lines ala Pilgrim Telephone, and (b) automatically puts him in line to receive the subsidy from the IXC's when it is finalized. The sign mentioned above says that for least expensive rates on long distance calls to use coins (the three minutes for one dollar deal as described) and continues, saying 'alternate inexpensive billing methods include 1-800-CALL-ATT, 1-800-AMERITECH (for calling card calls) and 1-800-COLLECT via MCI. "You may if you wish dial zero and be serviced by the IOS Operator Service at a somewhat more expensive rate per call." Finally -- and this to me is sort of a class act -- the COCOT speed dial positions (*0 through *9) are programmed with 'public service' numbers all operating free or for 25 cents each. For example one speed dial position dials the RTA/CTA Transit Inform- ation service 'to recieve public transit schedule information for this location'; another speed dial position connects to the local taxicab service; a third connects to a time-of-day/weather message and another one to 'report problems with this phone.' I am rather pleased the owner took the trouble to have the phone programmed in a non-ripoff fashion. Long distance is handled by AT&T on default calls. Apparently the public seems to like it also since it has been quite busy in the three weeks it has been in service. The owner goes outside and wipes the phone and its housing clean every day (the pigeons hang around there also) and each time I have walked past (or deliberatly stood around to see what it was doing) I see someone using it. This is a relatively busy bus stop corner, and instead of walking several yards to use the filthy, unlighted, and often times broken Ameritech phones people are seeing the COCOT and using it instead. The owner tells me the company which installed it and maintains it gives him a thirty percent piece of the action. He was told when the coin collector comes out to 'dump the box' he will come inside, count the money and hand over a third of it on the spot to the merchant. I can't help but think that much of the bum rap COCOTS have received in the past has been due to the ignorance of their owners in setting them up properly. In this case, the company which put it in told the store owner, "anything you want it programmed to do, let us know; it is all handled by our computer." He did not have the slightest idea what he wanted on the phone, so he asked me. I think if more COCOT owners would genuinely make an effort to *compete* with the local telco payphones, they would be amazed at the results. On his behalf I dealt directly with the installer/programmer, and we both had the same idea about the same time: always charge a nickle less than the Ameritech phones. Always charge as little as possible for long distance while still making a profit. Try and find a Genuine Bell payphone with three minutes of long distance for four quarters ... Do not be afraid to encourage people to use their calling cards via 800 'bypass' numbers set up by long distance carriers, since most will take advantage of the $1/three minutes thing anyway. By the way, this COCOT connects to 411 (Ameritech's national directory assistance line) for a flat rate of sixty cents, and it connects to any-555-1212 for seventy-five cents. I think the guy who owns the shop where it is located is going to see some nice $$$ from it, in a legitimate way. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jim Holland Subject: Redundancy Schemes for ATM vs TDM Date: 2 May 1997 02:22:54 GMT In today's public switched telephone network, traffic between switches is carried by a transport network that is engineered for high quality and reliability. One of the principal components of reliability in the transport network is facility redundancy (DS1, DS3, OC-3). The idea is to have an alternate path that can be used in the event of either a cable/fiber fault, or the failure of some transport network element. Two common schemes for implementing this redundancy are: 1. 1 for 1 redundancy: every active carrier has a standby that can be used if a failure is detected. 2. 1 for N redundancy: a group of N carriers has 1 standby facility that can replace any one (only one at a time) of the N facilities. In both cases, in response to a failure in the active path, the system will switch its traffic to the stand-by facility. This event is sometimes known as a protection switch. Now for my question ... Assuming that we have an ATM network carrying voice traffic for the PSTN, and that the ATM network is required to have the same level of reliability as that of today's transport networks, how is this redundancy implemented? Do today's ATM switches support the concept of a spare port that can be used as a stand-by port. Regards, Jim ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 May 97 10:26:24 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Area 703 Calls Do you know if there are any toll calls left within area code 703 now that area 540 has split from it? Toll as defined here does NOT include extended-area local. Also, I take it there are local calls across the 703/540 border; Leesburg is the seat of Loudoun County, and the next exchange west of there along route 7 should be 540-338 Purcellville (would those be the 10D variety?). Someone at the help line has told me that outside of the DC area, 7D would still be useable for those scattered cases of local calls from Md. to Del., Pa., W. Va., and one case to eastern shore Virginia. You've already got the 10D variety for local to DC and Va. suburbs (also across the 301/410 border, which affects, say, Silver Spring to Columbia and vice versa). And at least for now, 202 and 703 are still allowing 7D for local calls within area code (this includes those extended-area local calls, see above). So 240 is restricted as a prefix there, to allow for local calls going to Maryland-suburban phones in area 240. (In addition to the already-existing restrictions on use of 202,301,703,410 as prefixes.) Until after the full cutover of 10D for local within Md., you can't have phones in area codes 240 and 443, at least between Baltimore and Washington, because some 7D local calls within 301 started with 240 and 443. (Yes, I know today is the full cutover; 9-278-xxxx in an attempt to reach my own office phone in 410 area got the "improper access code" message within the office exchange. I should get a message -- obviously different -- if I try 7D from my home phone, which is also in 410.) ------------------------------ From: MCI.TELECOMMUNICATIONS@drn.zippo.com (Jimmy Stroud, Jr.) Subject: Employment Opportunity: [Austin, TX] Applications Engineer Date: 1 May 1997 08:33:12 -0700 Organization: MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION Network Systems Engineering Division Applications Test Engineer Applies knowledge of engineering principles and practices in the integration testing and field implementation of the Adjunct Processor/Save platform. Works independently with minimum supervision in the following: review technical documentation, analyze requirements, analyze test platform, hardware, circuit requirements, perform test bed configuration, define entrance and exit criteria, define detailed integration end-to-end test plan, perform regression, integration, end-to-end, performance and stress testing, perform field implementation. Work with a test team through the entire release, testing and implementation. Travel to remote sites to execute developed field implementations. Qualifications: B.S. degree or equivalent with 4-5 years in the areas of Data Communication protocols, telecom systems and systems integration testing experience. Detailed knowledge of Stratus computer systems, VOS and Unix, thorough knowledge of X.25, SNA, other protocols. Must possess excellent written and verbal communication skills combined with strong planning, coordination, analytical problem solving skills. Requires initiative with good work ethics, mature leadership capabilities. Also requires Unix and VOS operating systems, Stratus or IBM knowledge. JOB CODE:TCR13063 Please send resumes to the attention of Jimmy Stroud, Jr. Fax resumes to (770) 284-4866 or E-mail to 2176930@mcimail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 02:13:23 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FCC Universal Service Hearing to be Cybercast Online! Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 18:29:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Shabbir Safdar Subject: EVENT: FCC Universal Service Hearing to be cybercast online! ========================================================================= _ _ __| | ___ _ __ ___ ___ ___ _ __ __ _ ___ _ _ _ __ ___| |_ / _` |/ _ \ '_ ` _ \ / _ \ / __| '__/ _` |/ __| | | | | '_ \ / _ \ __| | (_| | __/ | | | | | (_) | (__| | | (_| | (__| |_| |_| | | | __/ |_ \__,_|\___|_| |_| |_|\___/ \___|_| \__,_|\___|\__, (_)_| |_|\___|\__| |___/ Government Without Walls Update No.6 http:/www.democracy.net/ May 1 1997 _________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents - Sit in on live FCC Universal Service hearing: May 7, 9:30am Eastern - Live Town Hall Meeting with FCC Chairman Reed Hundt: May 13, 7pm Eastern - In our archive - About democracy.net / Subscription Information ___________________________________________________________________________ SIT IN ON LIVE FCC UNIVERSAL SERVICE HEARING: WEDNESDAY MAY 7, 9:30AM ET The future of Universal Service in the nation's telecommunications network is one of the key elements of our nation's communications infrastructure. At issue - how to ensure that citizens who live in rural and inner city areas have access to advanced telecommunications services, and how to pay for it. The 1996 Telecommunications Reform Act directed the FCC to answer these questions. After nearly a year of investigation, hearings, and public comment, the FCC will announce its rules on Wednesday May 7th. You can join the proceeding live. Be present, ask questions, and get answers from FCC staff after the hearing. (FCC staff are not allowed to comment on a matter before the Commission before the commissioners have made their ruling.) Best of all, FCC Chairman Reed Hundt will join democracy.net on Tuesday May 13 for an online town hall meeting. Hundt will discuss the Universal Service proceeding and respond to questions from Internet users. * Universal Service Hearing - How To Participate * DATE: Wednesday, May 7, 1997 TIME: 9:30 am Eastern / 6:30 am Pacific (Event will last +/- 3 hours) LOCATION: http://www.democracy.net In advance of the hearing, please visit http://www.democracy.net for background information on the Universal Service issue, including links to various sides of the debate. You can also submit questions in advance. _____________________________________________________________________________ LIVE TOWN HALL MEETING WITH FCC CHAIRMAN REED HUNDT: TUESDAY MAY 13, 7PM ET During the May 7th Universal Service Proceeding, Internet users can submit their questions and comments via democracy.net. On Tuesday May 13, FCC Chairman Reed Hundt will join democracy.net for a live Virtual Town Hall meeting to discuss the Universal Service proceeding, respond to Internet users questions, and discuss other Internet-related issues before the FCC. This is a great opportunity for Internet users to talk with one of the key telecommunications policy makers. * Online Town Hall Meeting with FCC Commissioner Reed Hundt * * How To Participate * DATE: Tuesday, May 13, 1997 TIME: 7:00 pm Eastern / 4:00 pm Pacific LOCATION: http://www.democracy.net Visit http://www.democracy.net/ in advance of the event to submit questions. Additional information can be found at the FCC home page: http://www.fcc.gov _______________________________________________________________________________ IN OUR ARCHIVE * ONLINE TOWN HALL MEETING WITH REP. RICK WHITE NOW AVAILABLE IN OUR ARCHIVE! "I don't want to minimize the National Security concerns -- these concerns are real - but I think we've reached the point where the National Security community is going to have to solve these problems in a new world. You can't delay the arrival of the new world forever." -Rep. Rick White on encryption at 4/10 democracy.net town hall meeting You can listen to the entire transcript of the online town hall meeting, or selected excerpts, at http://www.democracy.net/archive/04101997/ * ONLINE TOWN HALL MEETING WITH REP. ANNA ESHOO NOW AVAILABLE IN OUR ARCHIVE! "I don't think Congress should rush into making decisions about the Internet. There are still far too many Members that are not users themselves, and therefore do not understand the medium." -Rep. Anna Eshoo on Congress and the net at 4/16 democracy.net online town hall meeting You can listen to the entire transcript of the online town hall meeting, or selected excerpts, at http://www.democracy.net/archive/04161997/ _______________________________________________________________________________ ABOUT DEMOCRACY.NET / SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION The democracy.net is a joint project of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) and the Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW) to explore ways of enhancing citizen participation in the democratic process via the Internet. To this end, democracy.net will host live, interactive cybercasts of Congressional Hearings and online town hall meetings with key policy makers. democracy.net is made possible through the generous support of WebActive (http://www.webactive.com), Public Access Networks (http://www.panix.com), the Democracy Network (http://www.democracynet.org), and DIGEX Internet (http://www.digex.net). More information about the project and its sponsors can be found at http://www.democracy.net/about/ To receive democracy.net announcements automatically, please visit our signup form at http://www.democracy.net/ or send mail to majordomo@democracy.net with "subscribe events" in the body of the message. To stop receiving announcements on the democracy.net "events" mailing list, please send mail to majordomo@democracy.net with the phrase "unsubscribe events" in the message body. _____________________________________________________________________________ End update no.6 05/01/1997 ============================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 15:03:00 -0400 From: Liz Ashraph Subject: What's the Status of the Lawsuit Against Destiny Telecom? Does anyone know if the lawsuit against Destiny has been settled or where that stands? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #108 ******************************