Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA05146; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 21:36:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 21:36:41 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709170136.VAA05146@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #251 TELECOM Digest Tue, 16 Sep 97 21:36:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 251 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Dyslexic Telephone Switch Causes Billing Errors (Robert J. Perillo) Bell Atlantic Changes re: Wire Maintenence (John McGing) Reflections on PCS'97 (Tara D. Mahon) Phone System Pricing (was Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare...) (Steve Hayes) Re: Phoning Home to 5 (John Mianowski) Re: Area Code 209 Split - CPUC News Release (Laura Twombly) Re: California's 209 NPA Split and MedicAlert (Tom Watson) Re: Wireless ISPs and Free Competition (Zev Rubenstein) 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: * telecom-request@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 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. 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: Tue, 16 Sep 97 18:22 EDT From: Perillo@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL (Robert J. Perillo) Subject: Dyslexic Telephone Switch Causes Billing Errors Northern Telecom Ltd. stated last week that its widely used DMS-100 telephone switch caused numerous billing errors in many phone company central offices due to a software bug introduced during a software upgrade this summer. The software glitch caused the billing interface to become dyslexic and use the wrong area code in phone company Central Offices covering more than one area code. The software snafu was fixed after about a month of erroneous billings. Net users calling their "fixed price" local access number found hundreds of dollars of overcharges on their telephone bills this summer. The local number was billed as a toll call with a different area code attached. To add to the confusion, customers were told by their local telephone company that the billing problem was with their long distance company or the Internet Service Provider (ISP). And these companies directed customers back to the local telephone company. Customers were refused an explanation but were finally told that it was a "System Error". Pacific Bell acknowledged that 167,000 Californians, mainly in the Bay Area's 415 and 510 area codes and 805 near Los Angeles, were billed $667,000 in unwarranted local calls. The problem was also reported by Nynex customers (now Bell Atlantic) in the New York City area. I do not understand why complete testing and some sort of independent review was not done by NorTel before they released the software upgrade? The local telephone companies should also have some sort of Quality Assurance program in place before they allow a contractor to upgrade software in their Central Offices? I also do not understand why the local telephone companies did not handle the problem better in terms of customer service, and inform all possible affected customer's of the problem? [References: Inter@ctive Week, "Net Users Overcharged in Glitch", by Louis Trager, 08-Sep-1997. Forbes Magazine, "Midsummer madness, New technology is marvelous, except when it isn't. System Errors", by Dan Seligman, 08-Sep-1997, page 234. ] Robert J. Perillo, CCP Richmond, VA Perillo@dockmaster.ncsc.mil ------------------------------ From: jmcging@dm.net (John McGing) Subject: Bell Atlantic Changes re: Wire Maintenence Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 22:30:36 GMT Organization: @Home Networks Note the out they put in if you run a modem on the line (or a fax, I guess.) BellAtlantic Dear Customer, September 1997 The Terms & Conditions for Bell Atlantic Guardian Enhanced Maintenance Service and Optional Wire Maintenance (the "Plans") have been revised. These changes will become effective on November 1" 1997. A copy of the new Terms & Conditions is enclosed. We encourage you to take the time to review the revised Terms & Conditions. A brief description of the changes to the Terms & Conditions are listed below. Description of the Plans - Optional Wire Maintenance : The description of the service has been revised to indicate that coverage applies to the inside wire and jacks associated with a Bell Atlantic or other eligible carrier's dial tone line. Inside wire and jacks associated with a dial tone line service not protected by the plan are not covered under the Plan. The description has also been revised to indicate that a service charge may apply when a repair person is dispatched and the problem is with the transmission or receipt of data or signals which is beyond the operating capabilities of the dial tone line. For example, using a voice grade dial tone line to transmit or receive data or signals. Description of the Plans : Guardian Enhanced Maintenance Service : The description of the service has been revised to indicate that a service charge may apply when a repair person is dispatched and the problem is with the transmission or receipt of data or signals which is beyond the operating capabilities of the dial tone line. For example, using a voice grade line to transmit or receive data or signals. Additionally, a sentence has been added to indicate that Guardian Enhanced Maintenance Service is not available for residential ISDN lines. Charges : A late payment charge has been added. A late payment charge may be applied to the unpaid balance of the bill for each billing period in which you fail to pay the bill in full by the due date. Exclusions : Two exclusions have been added to the Plans. In West Virginia, repairs resulting from major fires or acts of nature, such as floods, wind-storms and earthquakes will no be longer covered by the Plans. These exclusions have previously applied in all other states within the Bell Atlantic mid Atlantic service area. As noted above, an exclusion has been added to indicate that the Plans do not cover malfunctions in the dial tone line resulting from the use of voice grade lines to transmit or receive data or signals which exceed the operating capabilities of the line. A service charge may apply if a repair person is dispatched and the problem is determined to be of that type. Non-acceptance Instructions : If you do not wish to accept the above changes, you may terminate your participation under the Plan at any time by contacting Bell Atlantic al the number shown below. If you wish to continue your subscription to the Plan, do nothing. The Plan will remain on your line pursuant to the revised Terms & Conditions. Should you have any questions, please call us at 1 -800-232-4008. Sincerely, Glenn Pettit Assistant Product Manager ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 97 10:51:36 +0100 From: Tara D. Mahon Subject: Reflections on PCS'97 Hi Pat and DIGEST, The following went out as part of Insight's email newsletter, NewsFirst Telecom, yesterday -- thought the list would be interested. Best Regards, Tara D. Mahon, tara@insight-corp.com The Insight Research Corporation >>>NEWSFIRST EXTRA Reflections on the PCIA's PCS'97 Show, Dallas, TX As Texans are fond of telling everybody, things are bigger and better in Texas. This year's PCIA Personal Communications Showcase conference, held September 9-12, seemed to confirm this, with over 20,000 attendees and 600 vendors loudly proclaiming their wares. On the show floor were singing salesmen at PageNet, dancers at Samsung, H. G. Wells at Ericsson, and several towering antennae. Amid the noise and hoopla, we also observed signs of important trends in the wireless industry: o Wireless handsets for cellular or PCS operation are rapidly becoming commodities. Several vendors showed very similar models with price and distribution as the only clear differentiators. While market leaders sought to create distinct market niches--Nokia with style, Motorola with small size and range of products, Sony with innovative design-- the growing list of vendors, plus new products from Samsung and Lucent/Philips, make this an increasingly crowded market. For several vendors, innovative software from Unwired Planet and GeoWorks provides Internet access and enhanced wireless services. o Wireless Local Loop has arrived. Interesting new products from Mitsubishi, LG Electronics, Sony and others give carriers and installers a range of choices in this increasingly important market. We even saw a version of the Japanese PHS wireless system for use in the US. Using both the licensed and unlicensed PCS frequency bands, vendors are meeting the demand for lower cost alternatives to stringing more copper wire. Insight sees this as a rapidly growing and potentially exciting market both in the US and in developing countries. o Competition between the CDMA, TDMA, and GSM digital protocols continues. By now most vendors realize that Qualcomm's CDMA technology really works, while end-users want features and are confused by technology. As of mid-1997 there were 44 million wireless phones registered in the US and market research is finding households with multiple wireless phones. Insight sees success in this competitive market increasingly being determined by how well carriers can meet users' needs for coverage, security (especially for business users), and network reliability. o There was a lot of talk but few announcements of LMDS products. Since the FCC announced last March that it will auction off spectrum in the 28-31 Ghz band for this new service, there has been a lot of speculation about its performance and competitive benefits. There is also something of a backlash against more auctions and vendors' taking on large amounts of debt. Insight sees LMDS as one of several local loop distribution technologies. LMDS has advantages for carriers entering a new market and initially having limited penetration or market share. Its cost advantages in these "thin" markets for CLECs and other new carriers should make it valuable, especially for providing "bursty" services to smaller establishments. o As carriers seek to differentiate their services, security or fraud reduction is being recognized as a problem facing carriers and their corporate customers. Just as "churn" was the buzz word that would get carriers' attention last year, so systems and software vendors from Lucent Technologies to Systems Link Corp. see fraud reduction as an important sales opportunity. Insight Research would be pleased to discuss any of these issues and how they might apply to your firm. For further discussions, please contact Michael French, Vice President of Market Research at (973) 605 -1400, or by e-mail at michael@mf.insight-corp.com. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 09:34:09 -0400 From: Steve Hayes Subject: Phone System Pricing (was Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare...) In Telecom Digest V17 #241, Dave Stott wrote: > I did the arithmetic a little differently. If I'm an ISP and buy a > business line for $35 (the going rate in Phoenix from U S WEST), hook > a modem up to it for incoming calls, then receive calls every single > minute of every single day in a typical 30 day month (43,240 busy > minutes), then I'm paying 0.081 cents/minute for access. If, more > typically, I use the specific line 75% of the time (32,400 busy > minutes), then I'm paying .108 cents/minute for access. >If IXCs are paying PacBell >> versus $0.014 per minute paid to the local phone company for >> handling connections to a long distance carrier > then there isn't that much difference. Dave - check your arithmetic. $0.014 per minute is 1.4 cents/minute. That is about 13 times as much as .108 cents/minute. Quite a difference, I'd say. In any case, much of that $35 is paying for the physical line to the ISP. I'm sure that the IXC has to either provide the physical interconnection itself or pay something comparable to or more than $35/month for it. In my opinion, the whole thing is a mess. Most people in North America have become used to "unlimited free" local calls which are heavily cross-subsidized by that 1.4 cents/minute and (in most places) relatively high line rentals. Here in Britain, we have the opposite situation - lower line rentals and (in general) lower long-distance rates but hefty local call rates (about 5c/min daytime). Neither is a satisfactory situation. They don't reflect the real costs; resulting in poor utilization of the telecommunications infrastructure. My prescription would be: 1 - Phone service should be metered like electricity. With per-minute non-fixed costs in the fraction of a cent range, the metered rate might be about 0. 5 cent/min - a bit more for long distance. This sort of rate shouldn't deter most people from using the phone, any more than electricity rates deter most people from turning on a light. It would deter people from abusing the system with ISP connections nailed up all day, etc. If someone still wanted a nailed-up connection, they would be paying enough to cover the extra costs. 2 - The metered rate would not provide for itemized billing any more than you get itemized billing when you switch on a light. If you still need itemization even at 0.5 cents/minute, you could buy recording equipment or perhaps Telco could offer this service at extra cost. I suspect it costs as much to bill calls unde r the present system as it does to connect them. It must cost a whole lot more to promote all those confusing call plans, to administer all those charge card and collect call charges and to sort out all the billing disputes. And what about the costs of area code splits because every competing carrier needs its own office codes for rating purposes? 3 - Line rentals should - on average - cover fixed costs plus a reasonable mark-up. This would tend to be higher than at present but would be partly offset in most parts of North America by stripping out the current payment for those "free" local calls. 4 - In time, competition would drive all these prices down and bring them even closer to costs. With the present arrangements, there's much less incentive to focus on costs and much more to focus on silly marketing gimmicks. If you're at long-distance carrier paying 2.8 cents/minute for local network access, there's not much incentive to work on the 1 cent/minute or so it actually costs to connect the calls. 5 - Payphones should charge a fixed per-minute cash amount on all calls (except emergency) in addition to the metered charge to cover the cost of installing and maintaining the phone. No doubt, some other arrangement could be set up to allow calls to be made without coins but this arrangement should cover its own administrative costs. I'd say that this cost would be so much higher that everyone would decide to put the coins in instead. As an aside, this already happens in most of Europe. In Britain, you can make a short call to anywhere in the country with a 10p coin (about 15 cents). Very few people go through the operator to make a collect call for about 10 times as much. 6 - Where it was necessary to subsidize phone service (rural and low-income), this should be explicit and probably a responsibility of government. The revenue could be raised by a percentage tax on all telecommunications services. Although I'm sure that most telcos are making quite ample profits, I don't see this as the real problem. It's more that the present price structures prevent efficient use of the system and lead to massive overheads which we all end up paying fo r. Steve Hayes, Swansea, Wales, UK ------------------------------ From: mianows@ix.netcom.com (John Mianowski) Subject: Re: Phoning Home to 5 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 23:26:46 GMT Organization: Netcom When I was in the second grade, our small town got dial. It was a VERY big deal, with open houses at the CO, training presentations at the school, etc. I have a very vivid memory, from about three or four years before, having the following exchange: (Young child picks up phone handset). Operator: "Number please." Child: "459." Operator: "Their mother is sleeping." My friend's mother was a telephone operator, who had apparently worked the previous overnight shift. The day operator of course knew this, and would not put my call through!! JM ------------------------------ From: Laura Twombly Subject: Re: Area Code 209 Split - CPUC News Release Date: 16 Sep 1997 19:15:45 GMT Organization: ESAC Leonard Erickson wrote in article : > Anthony Argyriou writes: >> The 209 area code split will be implemented in the following stages: >> November 14, 1998 Start of Permissive Dialing >> May 15, 1999 Start of Mandatory Dialing >> August 21, 1999 End of Mandatory Dialing. > Excuse me? *End* of Mandatory dialing? I think someone at the CPUC is > using a bit too much "medical" marijuana. :-) It sounds goofy, but it's a useful name for what occurs at that time. That is when the new codes that the split released will begin to be assigned. The rest of the available codes will be removed from the special announcement that says something to the effect of "you must dial area code XXX." Which means that customers that misdial after that point will reach the standard Vacant Code announcement, or a wrong number. Laura Twombly ------------------------------ From: tsw@cagent.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Re: California's 209 NPA Split and MedicAlert Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 12:47:37 -0700 Organization: CagEnt, Inc. In article , Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > Could someone explain to me exactly _HOW_ these MedicAlert devices work? > I was under the impression that a _LOCAL_ telephone number of a _local_ > hospital or emergency reporting center would be dialed upon pressing the > 'panic' button, _or_ at least a toll-FREE 800 (or 888) number would be > programmed-in to be dialed. Do all MedicAlert signaling devices > throughout the US dial-out to a California 209 (toll) number? Medic Alert was founded BEFORE 800 numbers were in existance (or used very often) and as such, the early bracelets had instructions to call a 209 number COLLECT to get the 'vital' information. Later they did get an 800 number, but not until LOTS of bracelets had been issued. Thus I can see the reason why a particular number in 209 should continue to be that way. Of course, the phone company could do the "right thing" and setup a one-number CO that forwards the particular number to the correct area code (or some nice automated response). The fact remains, the number MUST be protected, as it is a "cast in stone" style number. I suspect that MedicAlert did some early negotation with the phone company (which was quite easy then) to insure that it would be "protected". Yes, there are lots of nice "igh-tech" solutions, but this is a political decision, and "high-tech" doesn't enter into the decision, only emotions. (*SIGH*) Perhaps we should re-unite the Bell System. (That's another topic, please create a new thread for it). tsw@cagent.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) Please forward spam to: annagram@hr.house.gov (my Congressman), I do. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 12:23:38 -0400 From: Zev Rubenstein Subject: Re: Wireless ISPs and Free Competition Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (ghosh@firstmonday.dk) writes: > Obviously ISPs should network themselves with the most cost-effective > technology possible, and the FCC part 15 spectrum is great for that. etc. Regarding ISPs networking themselves (in the business sense), check out Verio (http://www.verio.com), which has gotten lots of funding to buy smaller ISPs to create a nationwide network. Regarding wireless ISPs, check out http://www.warpdrive.net/hires/index.htm They are one of many wireless ISPs; they are using UHF frequencies for fixed wireless connectivity. I was going to use them myself, but am out of their current service area. Regarding bypass of the LEC in general by ISPs and NSPs, there was a great article a few weeks ago in Inter@ctive Week, which discussed how companies like Concentric Networks were applying for CLEC (competetive local exchange carrier) status. Concentric in particular doesn't offer ISDN service: they are banking on xDSL longer term, and are using frame relay and fractional T1 to service their market, which is primarily corporate & home office. As wireless technology is better able to compete with wireline infrastructure for bypass, there will likely be a price point where NSPs (like Concentric), larger ISPs and merged ISPs (e.g. Verio affiliates) eager to bypass the LEC bottleneck will pick the appropriate wireless technology to reach customers. Recall, also, that AT&T announced plans to use proprietary technology developed by AT&T Wireless Services (AWS) to do the same for both voice and data. (I recognize that there are those who claim that AWS is bluffing; I'm only pointing out that there are others with the same concept). Finally, MCI, which has always stuck to a reseller strategy in wireless and a build-infrastructure strategy in local service (in some areas) may choose to do the same: buying spare wireless capacity as it arrives (as George Guilder predicts it will). Zev Rubenstein Business Development Manager Predictive Systems 510-749-3210 zev@predictive.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #251 ******************************