Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA28874; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:47:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:47:43 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709301347.JAA28874@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #266 TELECOM Digest Tue, 30 Sep 97 09:47:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 266 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? (Dave Stott) Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? (J.F. Mezei) Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? (Al Varney) Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? (Bob Savery) Re: Suspense: Sorry, Wrong Number - Yesterday and Today (Dave Stern) Re: Suspense: Sorry, Wrong Number - Yesterday and Today (Louis Raphael) Re: Sprint Billing Disagreement (Eli Mantel) Re: Sprint Billing Disagreement (Orin Eman) 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: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 09:56:49 -0500 From: Dave Stott Subject: Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? In TELECOM Digest #263, Derek Balling wrote, in reply to my earlier post: > Does that require a little "rethinking" in terms of how people think > and dial? Yes. Indeed, it requires a massive 'rethinking' of number dialing in the NANP. As you point out, we would no longer know which calls are local and which are toll, and by extension, we no longer know if we are dealing with local or distant businesses. This is very similar to ordering something from an 800/888 number. We don't really care where the call center is located as long as they mail us the right item, and we really don't care if the call is local or not -- since we're not paying the bill, it really doesn't matter. When I look up a lawn rental equipment shop, though, I skip all the ones whose telephone numbers begin with '9', because there are no exchanges near me that begin with the number '9'. Instead, I focus on the 831's, the 820's, the 345's, etc. I don't want to call a 212-621 number because to me that means New York - quite a drive to rent a trencher that has to be back by 5pm today. > the database query could return back all sorts of information -- toll > or local, mileage, rate information. . . That's all well and good, but I can figure most of that out in my head today by looking at the number. If it starts with something other than 602, I have to pay. When we split or overlay 602 next year then I know that 602 or XXX means local (i.e. free). Your plan would also involve 10-digit dialing across the country, even in the areas not affected by it today. Most of the country (geo- graphically, if not by population) does not require 10-digit dialing. Under your plan every call would require both 10-digit dialing and a lookup, just to determine if it was toll or not. > and PBX's could be programmed just ONCE how to react. No more dealing > with AC splits and having to reprogram your PBX every six months. > Your PBX behaves just like it always has -- It queries the number, > gets the CKT-ID [and presumably a path of how to connect to it], > the rate information, etc. and confirms whether or not to complete > the call based on the PBX's programming. Hopefully, it also tells the PBX user why it can't complete the call if its programming won't allow the call to be placed. > For consumers afraid of making accidental long distance calls, the > system could simply sound a tone upon completion of the lookup, > indicating that the call is free or local, or some other way to be > determined. When we already have a pretty good system in place, why are we changing it? Today, whether it's seven or ten digit dialing, we (and most other people, I'd venture) generally know if a call is local or toll. There may be some confusion when ten digit dialing is first encountered, but people learn pretty quickly. If there is no rationale to the assignment of numbers, we lose our capacity to identify local vs toll without trying the number. There is an economic penalty associated with dialing a toll number vs a local number, so there is a large disincentive to put such a plan in place. Once the penalty is removed (either per minute pricing for all calls at the same rate no matter what the location of the number you dial, or by having someone else pay the cost of the call) then we can move to nongeographic numbering. Dave Stott (602) 831-7355 dstott@2help.com http://www.2help.com ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei <[non-spam]jfmezei@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 18:45:49 -0500 Organization: VTL Reply-To: [non-spam]jfmezei@videotron.ca Fred R. Goldstein wrote: > Yes, but remember billing is based on the dialed number, so if you > move to a different area, and keep your number, the cost of porting it > becomes your responsibility. This opens a can of worms, so it's well > into the future. Technically easy, of course. However, I have this *impression* that more and more, long distance companies are going for fixed fee pricing (10 cents a minute anyone?) irrelevant of where it is going in USA. Also, local companies would love to be able to charge for every call and some already do it. Once local calls are charged X amount, and long distance are charged Y amount, and the gap constantly narrowing, I do not think it inconceivable that a lon distance call anywhere in Canada/USA might just cost as much as a local call. At that point, dialing a number would cost the caller the same amount if that person happens to be "rerouted" to another city or be your next door neighbour. Lets take this a few steps further (ok, science fiction mode on). Your telephone number becomes each household's internet domain name and routers route both voice and IP calls to your household. This would make much more efficient use of adress space by sharing voice and data over the same network adresses (voice calls go to port X, email to port 25 etc). It would also make some very interesting competition situations (or lack thereof). ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? Date: 28 Sep 1997 13:36:17 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , Fred R. Goldstein wrote: > In article , jfmezei@videotron.ca > says ... >> 800 (and 888) numbers are "router" based, right ? When I dial an 800 >> number, the telco translates this to a standard telephone number, >> right ? > The originating local exchange looks up the 800 number to determine > which IXC owns it. That IXC then presumably does its own lookup to > figure out how to handle it, which might map to a standard phone > number or to a designated internal address on its own network. All > quite fast. If the Toll-free number happens to be "supported" by the LEC, then the first lookup will return an intra-LATA geographically-based number, rather than an IXC. > PAT> Also, I have to wonder about database failures as happens > PAT> occassionally now with 800. > A risk, of course. But there will not be one big fat national LNP > database; rather, each ported prefix code will have its own ported > numbers, and the telcos can figure out on a local or LATA basis how to > sort them out. So a failure in, say, the Chicago database won't block > New York. So far, inter-LATA calls route from the originating switch to the IXCs just as they do pre-portability. This includes the intra-LATA Toll cases, if the LEC isn't the pre-subscribed carrier. In general, each LEC will have redundant databases supporting a few LATAs. So a failure of multiple databases of a given LEC will affect only intra-LATA calls FROM that LEC TO the failure area. Calls from other competing LECs (or calls routed to an un-affected IXC via 101XXXX dialing) will terminate normally. (Note that LECs may share databases.) Database failure in an IXC network will affect calls via that IXC terminating in a few LATAs, although some IXCs may initially cover a large number of LATAs with one database pair. Any failure should not affect other IXCs, or LEC-handled calls in that area. (IXCs may also share databases.) > It wouldn't surprise me if, when the database failed, calls > defaulted to the ILEC owner of the prefix (pre-portability) so > un-ported numbers might still work. This is an option in some jurisdictions. What happens on a query failure is that the call is continued TOWARDS the dialed prefix's switch. Each switch in the path may decide to requery (there isn't any indication that a query failure occurred). Ultimately, the switch supporting that prefix could be reached, and it to will attempt to query -- unless the number isn't ported. So a failure in only the originating LECs network may not block any calls, unless the originating & prefix-owning switches are in the same network. Then only calls to ported numbers from that network will fail. > I think this will end up with third parties in charge. I'm not sure I understand what will lead to that scenario. Third parties may (or will) be in charge of coordinating number moves. I can't imagine a reason for a third party to own/control databases that will ultimately offer different services to different LECs. In article , Dave Stott wrote: > In TELECOM Digest #256, J.F. Mezei wrote: >> 800 (and 888) numbers are "router" based, right ? When I dial an 800 >> number, the telco translates this to a standard telephone number, >> right? >> Why not do the same for *ALL* NANP numbers? > Consider, also, that we are looking up every single number to satisfy > the desire of a small number of people who are only willing to change > phone companies IF they can keep their old number. I believe the argument to the state PUCs and the FCC was that the desire of several large LECs to enter the long-distance market required a "level" field in opening up the local-exchange market. Several studies concluded that there were more than a "small number" of people/businesses that were unwilling to change numbers unless the price differential was significant. Long-term, I don't see how there can be a significant price differential. So folks would be "locked" into their original provider. The exact same rationale lead to 800-number portability, and a significant market change occurred as a result (vs. the IXC-ownership of Toll-free prefixes). I don't believe SERVICE dis-satisfaction was considered a big driver in the local exchange market. PRICE dis-satisfaction was, and competition is supposed to fix that. But only if not artificially constrained by the reluctance to change telephone numbers. I'll go on the record as being willing to change local phone companies ONLY if I can keep my old number. After you've had a number for >20 years, you'll feel the same way. (Of course, I'm not sure my $23/month bill will attract a lot of new competitors.) Al Varney ------------------------------ From: bob.savery@hawgwild.com (Bob Savery) Subject: Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 05:31:00 GMT Organization: HAWG WILD! BBS (402) 597-2666 DD> It seems like a good solution, yet I have to wonder about the DD> network load associated with such a plan. Looking up every single Does anyone have statistics on the number of phone calls placed? Is there a computer system available that could even handle that number of transactions? DD> number, every time a call is placed would be a massive job. For DD> instance, think about a radio contest, or tickets to a Rolling DD> Stones concert going on sale -- every caller requires a lookup for DD> the exact same number, thousands or tens of thousands of times every DD> minute. This is on top of the normal call volume traffic. I would think it would be fairly easy to special route calls to these numbers. Telco's already do this in large market areas. DD> Consider, also, that we are looking up every single number to DD> satisfy the desire of a small number of people who are only willing DD> to change phone companies IF they can keep their old number. IF the Looking at residential areas, this would be true. But business's are the ones really driving for LNP. Some for economic reasons, some not. I work for a large health system. In our case, changing certian phone numbers (ie..ER, the Poison Center, etc...) could have deadly results. Marketing types love magnets and such with phone numbers on them. We own the entire 354 exchange, yet we're forced to maintain about 40 of our old numbers (we completed the conversion about 3 years ago) because people still dial them. At one of our other hospitals, I recently assigned what I thought was a free phone number. It started receiving 10-15 calls a day from people wanting various departments of the hospital. I just happened to mention the problem to one of the operators who'd been there forever (she cut her teeth on a cord board). Turns out this number used to be one of the main hospital phone numbers ... over 15 years ago! DD> service they are receiving is so bad today, or IF the new entrant's DD> offer is compelling enough to change, we wouldn't need local number DD> portability, but let's face it -- in most cases the service will be DD> over the same outside plant facilities, maintained by the same DD> technicians with the same level of training and the same level of DD> desire to do a good job and only the switch will be different. DD> Consequently the level service won't change. And the new entrant's DD> offer may be better, but only marginally so. Again ... this is true in residential areas. But CLEC's (at least here in Omaha) are laying fiber as fast as they can dig trenches. But you won't see a TCG or AT&T truck in a residential area! Over the last couple of months, I've had offers from three different companies to install their fiber directly into our phone rooms if we switch to their service. DD> So is the investment in LNP worth the price to provide virtually the DD> same level of service at virtually the same cost? Not in my DD> opinion. And yes, I do have a business that relies on my phone DD> number being accessable and somewhat constant, but I don't make DD> service decisions based on the cost of stationery. If I have to Neither do we. The decision to convert to the 354 exchange was mandated by the old exchange running out of numbers. Had that not happened, we'd not have changed. And having gone through that, and having to still dealing with the aftermath 3 years later, we will not be changing phone numbers again. DD> change my number, it's just one more reason to communicate with my DD> clients and remind them that their business is valuable to me. If it were only that simple! See Ya! Bob * RM 1.31 3192 * "640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates,1981 ------------------------------ From: Dave Stern Subject: Re: Suspense: Sorry, Wrong Number - Yesterday and Today Date: 29 Sep 1997 16:32:46 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Columbus, Ohio According to the internet movie database (http://us.imdb.com) there was a tv movie in 1989 that is described as a remake of the 1948 movie. There was also a hit for a 1977 French movie (Prostite, ne tot nomer...!) aka SWN. Dave Stern dstern@lucent.com ------------------------------ From: raphael@willy.cs.mcgill.ca (Louis Raphael) Subject: Re: Suspense: Sorry, Wrong Number - Yesterday and Today Date: 29 Sep 1997 03:27:13 GMT Organization: McGill University Computing Centre Two summers ago, I was in such a place, and needed the police, at 3am, from a public phone, in a relative hurry. True, the phone number must have been listed in the attached phone book, but I was very happy indeed to have an operator connect me, pronto. In stressful situations, the last thing one wants to be doing is looking up a phone number. 911 is a good thing, and should connect to an operator automatically where 911 service isn't available. I believe that this is done in some places. Louis ------------------------------ From: Eli Mantel Subject: Re: Sprint Billing Disagreement Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 10:08:17 PDT Sylvia Caras (sylviac@netcom.com) wrote: > ...I made a call that lasted 73 minutes and was startled > yesterday to receive a bill for $73, $1 a minute ... Sprint > told me, when I questioned the charge, that I should have > known I was making an international call to Canada, that > the international rates applied here ... When I read this message, I thought you must have been mistaken, and that the calls were to some Caribbean country. I called up Sprint customer service, who transferred me to sales, who seemed to be unable to quote me rates for calls from California to Canada. When I called back, I was told that the rates to Canada on the Sprint Sense California program (without the international option) were 10, 25, or 40 cents a minute, depending on the time of the call. But then I was told that these rates had just gone into effect about three weeks ago, and that before that, they were $1.05 a minute! I don't think these are typical "basic" rates for calls to Canada, so I expect that Sprint simply created artificially high rates for these calls as a way of offsetting their 10 cent a minute rate on weekend calls to Canada. To be sure, it is the customer's responsbility to realize that they are making an international call, notwithstanding the fact that under the North American Numbering Plan, calls to Canada and to the Caribbean use area codes instead of country codes, and that charges for these calls are usually higher than for calls within the U.S. However, the practice of long distance phone companies notifying customers of rate changes by small, incomprehensible ads in the Wall Street Journal (which meets the legal requirements because the rates are technically still regulated) stretches the notion of what constitutes a legally enforceable contract. In fact, rates are not regulated, so why should notice by publication in the Wall Street Journal still be considered sufficient notice? Obviously, it shouldn't. IMO, although it's reasonable to expect that you'll realize you're calling Canada, it's not reasonable to expect you to know about the high rates Sprint charges for such calls, when they never notified you of those rates. Essentially, Sprint has committed "deception by omission", highlighting their lower rates, while failing to mention that their charges are outrageous at other times. By the way, I have a web page of "Sprint Lies". Check my web site under Telecom Scams. Eli Mantel aka the Cagey Consumer www.geocities.com/wallstreet/5395 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note" A web page for Sprint's various lies? Amazing ... was your system administrator willing to allow you that much space on the system? I thought at geocities the amount of space per user was quite limited. ... PAT] ------------------------------ From: orin@wolfenet.COM (Orin Eman) Subject: Re: Sprint Billing Disagreement Date: 29 Sep 1997 18:58:17 GMT Organization: Wolfe Internet Access, L.L.C > advantage to continue as it was written. Even if ten cents per minute > to Canada was not the established rate, a dollar per minute seems > rather excessive, but Sprint has used 'bait and switch' tactics like FYI: I'm on AT&T's 10c a minute plan, but calls to Canada don't count either. I just happened to have an example here - 9:06AM, Everett WA to Vancouver BC - 3 minutes $1.29. Not too bad since GTE will charge over 30c a minute for some intraLATA calls (fortunately AT&T can now carry those at 10c a minute and sendhelp.com help out with the Everett to Seattle calls). Orin ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #266 ******************************