Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA21535; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:29:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:29:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710031329.JAA21535@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #269 TELECOM Digest Fri, 3 Oct 97 09:29:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 269 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Bell Atlantic Digital Bill - Many Errors (Douglas Reuben) Cell One / Albany Charging For Incomplete Calls (Douglas Reuben) Baltimore's 3-1-1 Service (oldbear@arctos.com) Book Review: "NetResearch: Finding Information Online" (Rob Slade) Bell Atlantic Toll Alerting in Massachusetts (Greg Monti) Perhaps 888 Was a Poor Choice (Linc Madison) Spamford v. Agis (Bill Levant) The Even Hand of the Law (oldbear@arctos.com) WorldCom - MCI Merger? (Chris Moffett) NYS PSC Recommends "Overlay" For New NYC Area Code (Danny Burstein) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Reuben Subject: Bell Atlantic Digital Bill - Many Errors Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 04:49:12 EDT Well, after weeks of waiting to see if Bell Atlantic's Digital service rates for the New England region are really what they promised, I received my first bill for our new digital account today. I must admit I was expecting a disaster -- high priced roaming charges for markets which they promised would be free (for off peak, as on my account I asked for the free off peak option), local call charges, roaming daily charges, etc. After reviewing the bill, I must same I am pleased that it is not as bad as I had thought, and they got it substantially correct. Bell Atlantic/CT (00119) has offered a weekend off peak plan for over a year now (as do most BAMS properties), as well as the first incoming minute free on certain plans (a very nice feature -- I give out my cell numbers much more liberally now), and more recently, off-peak airtime for free (between 8PM and 7AM, and all day on weekends and select holidays). Although initially they had billing problems with some of these, current bills are flawlessly correct when it comes to the above categories of calls for their analog service, and the digital is no different. All my calls with the digital phone were billed correctly in the CT market. (Note that by "digital" I mean calls placed with my digital account; it makes no difference if you are in digital or analog mode. Additionally, the digital account includes all of Connecticut, even Litchfield, which is serviced by AT&T Wireless. Bell Atlantic has had a series of plans which rated Litchfield/AT&T calls at the same "home" rate as the rest of CT, so the fact that they got this correct on their digital plan bills doesn't suprise me either.) The New England Digital plan also allows for "home airtime" rates over a large section on BAMS's "B" side systems, from Boston/NH/RI (00028), Eastern NH (00428), Vermont (00300), Albany (00078), Valley Cellular/Columbia County/Catskills,NY (01516 - except you can't place or receive calls there, how nice :( ), Poughkeepsie (00486) and Orange County NY (00404). For calls placed in the 00028 system, everything was billed perfectly! All calls appeared as "home" calls, ie, no special roaming charges, peak rates were billed as your peak home airtime rate (40 cents/minute, in my case), off peak was free, local calls were free, and in general, I was billed as if it were one, large seamless system. (Note toll charges ARE incurred if you place or receive calls to/from OUTSIDE of the market you are in, generally, but this is clearly stated in the policy sheet, and is more or less the norm in the industry.) For the Albany 00078, Poughkeepsie 00486 and Orange County NY 00404, this is not the case, and calls were billed at either $.99 per minute (standard roaming, even though there are BAMS properties!), $.59 per minute, or $.49 per minute (discounted "B" roaming on BAMS properties for other BAMS customers.) Local call charges were also incurred, and the free off peak airtime and free incoming minutes were not accounted for. I have yet to receive a bill for the other areas which are included in the Northeast plan. Additionally, the monthly charges are listed in such a Byzantine fashion that it is incomprehensible. There are 2 charges for monthly no answer transfer service, and then 3 credits for it (it is supposed to be free), one charge for voicemail and then a credit and then a prorated charge, credits for service, then charges for compensate for these credits, then more credits. I gave up; I figure this is due to my initiating service in mid-cycle (I have it billed to one of our other accounts which has been in service with them since 1987 when they were Metro Mobile). Hopefully, subsequent itemizations for recurring service will be less confusing! After reviewing the bill, I called BAMS to get the NY system(s) calls credited. I expected the worst -- in the the past when I have called BAMS for credits, I usually received a condescending "We'll give you credits this time just to be nice, but if you do it again, you will have to pay" or "Your home airtime rate doesn't apply outside your home state even though the brochures say 'home airtime rates apply' in Boston, Albany, etc." To my suprise, the rep. at BAMS looked over the bill (which was over $500 due to all the roam calls which were incorrectly billed), and after 30 seconds, said "Oh, I'm terribly sorry, it is obvious that there is some mistake in the billing. I will get a full printout in the morning, get the correct amount fo credits, and also make sure that our billing department corrects this so that you and other digital customers don't have this happen again." I was shocked -- it's rare to hear a cust. service rep. at a cell company not only agree with you, but indicate that something will be immediately done to resolve the problem in my (and their other customers') favor. Most impressive ... I figure either (a) a lot of people called about this already, (b) there are extensive notes on our account with them saying "just do what the customer says or he won't give up" :), or (c) they genuinely want to keep customers of their digital service and prevent churn (I would have cancelled in two seconds had she said "Well, the brochures are wrong, and you have to pay roaming charges et. al. when outside your home state.") As to a separate matter, I posted a few weeks ago regarding voicemail notification (on the phone's display, not the tones you hear when you place a call) not working outside of Connecticut. Well, someone must have done something, because all of a sudden, it is working everywhere! As a matter of fact, it is too much -- if I have a voicemail present, it beeps me whenever I enter into a new system, and perhaps each time I travel to an area covered by a different switch. It can be slightly annoying to receive all those beeps for just one voicemail (ie, if you don't check it, it just keeps beeping and beeping every so often as you hit different switches/systems), but at least it WORKS now, so it is certainly an improvement. No improvement yet with my e-mail paging in most on NYC, RI, and the other markets where it doesn't work, or with the silly 55 character alpha limitation. I guess I'll just have to wait for those ...:) Also, for the careful readers of my posts :), the 01516 system STILL does not allow outgoing calls (for some BAMS customers, mainly those from CT with 860 numbers), and doesn't have ANY incoming calls at all for BAMS customers. This is *supposedly* a BAMS property, yet BAMS customers can't really use it (it is jointly owned by BAMS and some hicks living up in the hills there who don't know how to run a system, and NO, people living in Columbia county aren't hicks, just the people who administer (ha! what a misnomer ...) the 01516 system are). BTW, my GTE Mobilnet/CA phone works fine there, both in terms of placing AND receiving calls. So BAMS has really dropped the ball there, and needs to do something to integrate that system with the rest of its properties. BTW, although I don't encourage it since I think it is a good deal overall, if you want to get out of your BAMS digital [or any] contract, you can tell them "Geez, well, if I can't get calls in the 01516 market, then the phone really isn't that useful to me -- I mainly bought it just to use in my home market any my country home in Columbia County, NY". They may tell you that you can switch to the "A" side to place calls, but this is only true for some BAMS customers, and you can not receive calls on the "A" side (01515) unless you are a CT/00119 "A" customer. Hopefully, they will fix service there so people don't have to get out of contracts and switch carriers just to be able to get calls there. If I can get calls in the 01516 system on my GTE CA 00040 account from 3000 miles away (which utilizes the same switch, the Autoplex, which BAMS does), then I *should* be able to receive and place calls in that market with my BAMS account as well. (BTW, the 01516 is not an Autoplex switch, or at least it has different confirmation tones than do other Autoplex switches. But if GTE can deliver calls to it, I think BAMS should be able to as well.) Overall, though, I am becoming increasingly impressed with the totality of th BAMS digital service in the Northeast. From the coverage areas and "extended" home airtime areas, to the free features, voicemail notification now working in most places, increasing alpha messaging territory, and (hopefully improving) billing, the service is well worth the money. I still think the sound quality of digital and audio delay is nothing to write home about, but overall, it is an attractive service, which will grow increasingly so as they increase the alpha messaging footprint and fix up systems like the 01516 which despite it being a semi-BAMS property does not really support any BAMS customers. Finally, I am planning on setting up a WWW site (www.wirelessnotes.org) on Interpage's server to host (modestly :) ) my posts, but more importantly, I'd like to have a regularly updated, system by system list of known problems, issues, interesting facts, billing and roaming billing practices, etc. It will be free, of course, and serve a repository for any problems in a given market which will be updated as they are corrected, etc. I invite anyone with any such information or problems of a systemic nature in a given cellular, PCS, etc. system to submit messages to wirlessnotes@interpage.net (I didn't set up the .org mailing addresses yet) for inclusion, now or at any time in the future. In a submission, please have the Cellular Operator's name (ie, Cell One/Boston), the SID number if available (00007 for Boston, or if you don't have the SID then indicate if it is A or B, PCS, etc.), the nature of the problem or issue, how long it has been going on, and other information along those lines. Paging notes and observations dealing with paging systems are also gladly welcomed. I'd like to stay away from individual issues such as "I asked for credits on my bills and they never gave it to me" or "My phone broke and now there is no backlighting and XYZ Cell co. doesn't want to pay for a new one", etc., and instead have a system by system listing of general problems, issues, or interesting facts which would be of benefit to the entire wireless community. Thanks in advance for any submissions! Regards, Doug dreuben@interpage.net / +1 (510) 254-0133 / www.interpage.net Interpage Network Services Inc. ------------------------------ From: Douglas Reuben Subject: Cell One / Albany Charging For Incomplete Calls Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 03:32:55 EDT I recently reviewed a series of bills for our company detailing roaming charges in the Cellular One/Albany, NY (00063) system. It seems that for ALL of our accounts, EVERY call, even unanswered calls of a few seconds, are being billed! We have accounts with a number of "A" carriers from Boston, NYC, Connecticut, Vermont, California, New Orleans, and New Jersey. All of them reflected both incoming and outgoing calls which no one answered and were significantly less than 45 seconds. Additionally, I was billed a $3 (daily charge) and $.99 on our Boston (CO/Boston, 00007 account, not to mention their "Pizza Fund" rip-off $4 "roamer administration charge" -- I've already cancelled two accounts with them as a result of this outrageous charge and moved them over to Bell Atlantic and AT&T), and $.99 on our Bell Atlantic/CT 00119 bill, for the privilege of entering "*350" to turn on call delivery! (I had called Cell One/Albany about two years ago to ask them if they billed for incompletes, both incoming and outgoing (incoming incompletes are sometimes refered to as "ringtime"). There were similar problems back then, and after a series of calls, CO/Albany took care of it. They also told me that they do not bill for incoming/outgoing calls which are not answered as long as they are shorter than 45 seconds.) After a few months of just figuring that these bills were correct, I decided to do some tests, since it recently seems to have happened over and over. I called non-working numbers from a variety of our accounts while roaming in the Albany 00063 system. I also placed calls from the "B" side (Bell Atlantic/Albany, 00078, which, like most responsible "B" carriers, does not charge for incomplete calls) to the various "A" side carriers I utilized while roaming on the 00063 system. EVERY call to a non-working number, even ones where I hung up right after I pressed SEND, was billed airtime, taxes etc. It was not, however, billed a toll charge, since the dialed number was not in service, and thus not a billable call (Wow, they managed to get that part right ... miraculous! ;) ) EVERY incoming call, even if I let it ring just once, was billed, but again, there was no toll-delivery charge. Thus, by way of example, if I were using our Cell One/VT 00313 account, which was set to roam on the Albany/A 00063 system, when a call was placed to the Cell One/VT number, and the phone rang in Albany, the call was billed airtime by Cell One/Albany, but CO/VT did NOT bill me the toll charge to "deliver" the call from the 802 number which was dialed to my (temporary, automatically assigned, "TDN" number) phone in the Albany system. This is a clear indication that the Albany system is charging airtime for "ringtime", in violation of their own stated policy. I am in the process of addressing this issue with our carriers who charged us (or passed along the charges) for roaming in the Albany system. I am insisting on complete credits, and an investigation as to why we were charged when we were told a number fo times by Albany that we would not be charged for incompletes, especially after bringing this problem a few years ago. When I told ATT/NY (00025) about it, the first rep I spoke with gave me a rather hard time (ie, "Oh, they are allowed to do that, there is nothing we can do"; wrong, the NY system is billing us for the calls, they are Albany's agent in effect, if Albany promised us not to bill for calls less than 45 seconds and they did then the NY system should either take it up with Albany or credit the calls and have Albany try to collect from us directly. Then I got the usual "Why did you call numbers which you knew were not working?" (because neither you nor Albany bother to check these things yourself and someone else, unfortunately, needs to test these things), "Why did you place so many incoming calls, that seems odd?" (Because I didn't want to give you misinformation and needed to be sure by performing a grand total of 6 calls), etc.) Eventually, after pointing out the fact that I was billed airtime charges but not toll charges, I convinced him, and he issued a credit. More importantly, AT&T/NY later said that (at least as far as AT&T/NY goes), the problem was fixed, and incomplete incoming/outgoing calls while in the Albany/00063 system will not appear on subsequent bills. I hope so, AT&T is usually very quick to fix these things, even if their front-end help can use some better training. (I dunno, something about being drilled about my calling patterns just to show them that they may have a problem is a bit disconcerting :( ). I am still pursuing the matter with the other carriers, and will insist that Cell One/Albany either correct the billing, or give roamers correct information if they do indeed bill for incomplete calls of less than 45 seconds. Cell One/Boston should be fun -- they fight tooth and nail just to keep the $4 roamer fee, $3 daily charge, and $.99 per minute roam rate. Unbelieveable -- $7.99 just to press *350! That's why I am slowly dumping them as our accounts pass the contract period in favor of Bell Atlantic (Nynex) -- the offer a wider coverage area from Rhode Island to New Hampshire, no local call charge on most plans, unlimited off-peak, no airtime charge for voicemail deposition, and no petty, cheap "roamer admin" charges for giving you the "privilege" of roaming. Additionally, I believe that the Cellular One organization does not allow carriers to charge for feature activations, such as enabling call delivery via *350. (I may be wrong, but I will check with them.) If I find out this is correct, and CO/Albany insists that it may charge for hitting *350 and other features, I will bring this to the attention of the Cellular One organization for them to deal with. If you roam in the Albany A system, or have in the past few months, you may want to check your bill(s) for incomplete/unanswered calls and contact your local carrier if you feel you were incorrectly charged. Regards, Doug dreuben@interpage.net / +1 (510) 254-0133 / www.interpage.net Interpage Network Services Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 23:35:12 -0400 From: The Old Bear Subject: Baltimore's 3-1-1 Service This came to me from Robert Vroman who particiaptes in an Emergency Services Discussion List. He says original source was the {New York Times} web site on 10/2/97. I personally find this a worrysome idea. It would seem that the 911 staff should be able to better triage incoming calls. I wonder what will happens when someone calls 3-1-1 because they only have a "small fire" or didn't want to call the regular 9-1-1 number because they were not absolutely sure they were having a heart attack. The fact that Baltimore was dispatching emergency personnel to non-emergency situations sounds more like a staff training problem in their dispatch center than any kind of technological issue. 311 Takes Pressure Off Overburdened Emergency Phone System By Michael Janofsky BALTIMORE -- Until a year ago, the owner of a cat stuck in a tree and the spouse of a shooting victim would likely call the same number for help: 911. But under a pilot federal program that is likely to expand quickly around the country and beyond, Baltimore is using a different telephone number for non-emergencies, 311, a change that has reduced the number of 911 calls to local police by nearly 25 percent, enabling operators to handle life-threatening situations more efficiently and giving officers more time to patrol the streets. In announcing the results of the program on its first anniversary, local, state and federal officials said the 311 experiment has been so successful that more than 100 other jurisdictions, including bigger cities like Chicago and Philadelphia, are eager to try it. "The results here have exceeded my expectations," said Joseph E. Brann, the director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing in the Justice Department. "The importance to the rest of the country is that this was a community willing to use a new strategy to solve an old problem." Most regions have used 911 as an emergency alternative to a seven-digit number for the local police station since the early 1970s. But here in Baltimore, Thomas C. Frazier, the police commissioner, said the steady increase of calls to 911, an average of 5 percent a year in recent years, was forcing many officers to spend their entire eight-hour shifts responding to calls -- many of which were not true emergencies -- at the expense of department efforts to increase the time officers patrol neighborhoods by car and foot. "We are trying to create more discretionary time for officers." Frazier said at a news conference, "and this enhances our ability. It has freed up an amount of time for them to be proactive, rather than reactive." As part of the Clinton administraton's comprehensive 1994 crime act, the Justice Department last year had a small grant -- $349,787 -- available to test a program that would combine new technology and a city's willingness to wean residents from 911 for non-emergency needs. Baltimore jumped at the chance. After a year, Frazier pronounced the program "a huge success," with 24.8 percent fewer calls to 911 and better service for those who still needed it. A department analysis of calls made after 311 was implemented showed that 911 operators now answer within an average of two seconds, rather than six seconds; that 78.5 percent fewer callers get a busy signal, and that 82.2 percent fewer get a recorded message asking them to not to hang up. In addition, a police survey of people who called 311 found that 98.2 percent of them were satisfied with the response even after learning that an officer would not be immediately dispatched. For example, someone returning from vacation to discover a burglary had taken place would probably be told by a 311 operator that police would respond, but not necessarily right away. More significant, Frazier said, the availability of 311 to solve non-emergency problems led to an immediate decrease in the frequency with which the police were dispatched. After 311 was introduced, Frazier said, the number of times police were dispatched fell enough to give an officer an additional hour a day for community policing. Frazier added that the overall crime rate in Baltimore has fallen 15 percent in 1997, compared with an 11 percent drop in 1996. The success of the 311 option here probably will lead to its implementation in other cities. Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, who helped lobby for the federal grant, said Maryland's other populous regions, including Montgomery County and Prince George's County, which surround Washington, would soon get 311 systems. And John F. Reintzell, a spokesman for the Baltimore police department, said that the department has received inquiries from 150 police departments in the United States, Great Britain, Canada and South Korea. Brann of the Justice Department said that the federal government did not intend to offer further financial support for 311 but that several current studies the government was monitoring could help localities decide how they might amend the way they handle emergency calls. Dallas is offering a 311 line for access to all city agencies, and Buffalo, N.Y., is beginning a public awareness campaign to familiarize residents with seven-digit police station numbers. "Agencies all over the country are interested," Brann said. "But we're not trying to shove anything down anyone's throat. It should be a local agency determination." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 10:40:53 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "NetResearch: Finding Information Online" BKNTRSCH.RVW 970327 "NetResearch: Finding Information Online", Daniel J. Barrett, 1997, 1-56592-245-X, U$24.95/C$35.95 %A Daniel J. Barrett %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 1997 %G 1-56592-245-X %I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. %O U$24.95/C$35.95 800-998-9938 707-829-0515 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com %P 240 %T "NetResearch: Finding Information Online" In a way, all use of the Internet involves a search for information. The search may be informal, or even completely serendipitous, but it exists, nonetheless. In that regard, the title of this book is appropriate. What is provided here is a fairly generic, brief Internet guide. There is an emphasis on search tools related to various net applications. An emphasis, but not terribly detailed or specific. Tools are listed, and sometimes explanations of use or even tips are included. The finer points of searching, though, are hardly ever touched on. Nor are there particulars of the advantages of one system over another. Barrett starts out by saying that the book will concentrate on graphical client software, but, in fact, almost no details of any interface are given. The content leans very heavily on the use of Web search engines, and relies on Web interfaces even where telnet or email options exist. For the rank novice, only just starting to explore the net, this does provide an accessible source of search tools, as well as explanations of the construction of domain names and URLs (Uniform Resource Locators). In addition, Barrett, while emphasizing Web tools, does provide some information on Usenet, mailing lists, and email addresses. (Veronica only gets a mention, and WAIS doesn't even get that.) In comparison to Gilster's "Finding it on the Internet" (cf. BKFNDINT.RVW), "NetResearch" is more up to date, but only a beginner's primer. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKNTRSCH.RVW 970327 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca Ceterum censeo CNA Financial Services delendam esse Please note the Peterson story - http://www.netmind.com/~padgett/trial.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 00:12:45 -0400 From: Greg Monti Subject: Bell Atlantic Toll Alerting in Massachusetts On 30 Sep 97, fenner@parc.xerox.com (Bill Fenner) wrote: > In article , Roger Fajman > wrote: >> That's a rather odd position for Bell Atlantic to take, since we've >> had 10 digit dialing for local calls for some time now in the >> Washington, DC area, which is Bell Atlantic territory. I think this topic is missing a key item buried in a Bell Atlantic press release. Background: Massachusetts was recently (and may still be) a "partial toll alerting" state. Calls within the same area code are alerted as to whether they are toll by a 7-digit vs. 11-digit dialing plan. Calls which cross area code boundaries, even if they are local, are all dialed with 11 digits. I assume there is some historical or technical reason for this. Perhaps some switching equipment could not comprehend a 10 digit string that was not prepended with a "1". The story now: I think that the technical reason no longer exists, so the Mass. DPU is intending to force Bell Atlantic to go back to "full toll alerting" in which cross area code local calls may be dialed with 10 digits, while cross area code toll calls must be dialed with 11 digits. The trouble is, they want BA to implement this in a "general way" so the people who have the most common type of unlimited local service get the toll alerting correctly. People who buy the "extended area" local calling service (which increases the number of prefixes in your local calling area for an additional monthly fee) would still be required to dial 11 digits to reach those additional prefixes, even of the call is local and free, and even if it is in the same area code as the caller. *This* is what Bell Atlantic is saying is confusing. That toll alerting is correct for some people, but not for others. They're going through all this trouble to re-implement full toll alerting, but it won't be correct for everybody. BA's position is "why have toll alerting at all?" They want Massachusets to go to 7 digits for within area code, 11 digits for outside, both regardless of toll. Just another reason why toll alerting through dialing plans is a bad idea. Why not have the recorded sound of a cash register play just after the last digit is dialed to indicate toll? > Well, Bell Atlantic inherited that system when they acquired C&P > Telephone. Changing it to whatever Bell Atlantic thinks is not > confusing would have been confusing =) Not true. Bell Atlantic already owned C&P Telephone from Bell Atlantic's moment of birth on January 1, 1984. The 10-digit dialing plan (for cross area code local calls) in the Washington Metropolitan area was not implemented until October 1, 1990. When I moved into the Washington Metro area in late 1979, 10-digit dialing on local calls was specifically disallowed. From 301, you'd get a fast busy immediately after dialing "202". Obviously, that restriction was lifted sometime between 1979 and 1990. Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~gmonti ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Perhaps 888 Was a Poor Choice Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 03:42:27 -0700 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! I was having a discussion with a neighbor whose business has an 800 number that is getting a large number of wrong-number calls for the company that now has the same number in 888. It occurs to me (with 20/20 hindsight) that 888 was a poor choice for the second toll-free SAC. It just doesn't jolt the average Joe enough as being distinct from 800. A different choice -- maybe 822 -- would have been more distinctive, and might have resulted in fewer problems. There could've been ads with the jingle "8-2-2 is toll-free, too!" Of course, I think that the root of the problem is that there seems to have been no coherent attempt at a public education campaign for 888. Too many phone books still refer to 800 without mentioning 888. ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best-com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 22:17:25 EDT Subject: Spamford v. Agis According to this morning's __Philadelphia Inquirer__, (10/1/97), U.S. District Court Judge Anita Brody granted Spammy a temporary injunction against AGIS, which forces AGIS to reconnect Cyberpromo for the next fifteen days. Evidently, Spammy's contract with AGIS required thirty days' notice before cancellation; since AGIS didn't give thirty days' notice, they have to reconnect him (why only 15 days wasn't made clear in the article, but the judge probably counted the initial disconnect as "notice", and that was about 15 blissfully-spam-free days ago; 15 + 15 is, of course, 30). Spamford is reportedly looking to purchase a backbone provider, so as not to be at the mercy of an upstream provider ever again (assuming any would still host him); AGIS is considering an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Bill ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 17:45:58 -0400 From: The Old Bear Subject: The Even Hand of the Law Pat: From what I can tell from this wire-service story, it looks like the court made the correct legal decision -- my personal feelings notwithstanding. I place more blame on AGIS and its counsel for not having prepared and negotiated a document with better protection of AGIS under these circumstances. Now, if the denial-of-service attacks (and/or UDP) on AGIS resume, AGIS could find itself in a position where it would be unable to deliver services to any of its customers -- placing it in default of its obligations under its other contracts. While there is an important lesson here concerning the need for some legislative action on spam, the bigger lesson of this particular skirmish may be the poorly drafted and administered contractual used by virtually all internet providers -- and the superficial level of understanding of the internet by the lawyers who are providing legal advice to internet providers. If one plans to contract with the Devil, one should first be sure one has a damn good lawyer to review the documents. Cheers, The Old Bear ------------- Junk E-mail Company to get Internet Access Services Restored {Associated Press} PHILADELPHIA (AP) 01-OCT-97 - Cyberspace's leading junk e-mailer must have its Internet access restored, at least temporarily, a federal judge ruled Tuesday. U.S. District Judge Anita Brody ordered Apex Global Internet Services Inc., also known as AGIS, to reconnect service for Cyber Promotions Inc. through Oct. 16 or until the company secures comparable Internet service. Cyber Promotions, of Philadelphia, sued the Dearborn, Mich.-based Internet provider for terminating its Internet account Sept. 16. Cyber Promotions was dropped by its secondary provider, WorldCom Inc., in June. Brody, while noting her `"strong personal distaste for Cyber's business," prevented the termination of its service without 30 days notice, as stipulated by contract. Cyber Promotions has been targeted by Internet users for sending an estimated 80 percent of all unsolicited bulk e-mail, also known as spam. About 10,000 customers pay Cyber Promotions to send 18 million to 20 million junk e-mail messages each day. AGIS terminated Cyber Promotions followed a massive "ping attack" on AGIS's network, which disables computers attached to the Internet by flooding them with repeated information requests, the judge said in her memorandum. AGIS maintains the attack was directed at Cyber Promotions. "Many computer users find the receipt of bulk e-mail annoying and intrusive," Brody wrote. "However, the fact that Cyber is an unpopular citizen of the Internet does not mean that Cyber is not entitled to have its contracts enforced in a court of law or that Cyber is not entitled to such injunction relief as any similarly situated business." ------------------------------ From: Chris Moffett Subject: WorldCom - MCI Merger? Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 15:38:00 -0400 NEW YORK (CNNfn) - Wall Street stocks moved higher at the opening bell Wednesday as traders focused on telecommunications issues in light of a surprise suitor for MCI Communications. [snip] The biggest news on Wall Street Wednesday was long-distance provider WorldCom's surprise offer to buy MCI Communications for $30 billion, or $41.50 a share. The bid jumps right in the middle of British Telecommunications' planned $18 billion acquisition of MCI. Shares of MCI (MCIC) jumped 5-7/8 to 35-1/4, while BT (BTY) rose 5-1/2 to 72-1/8. WorldCom (WCOM) was off 7/8 to 34-1/2. Merrill Lynch stirred the punch bowl a bit more when it raised its rating on WorldCom to "accumulate" from "neutral." WorldCom, which has been on a takeover frenzy that includes purchases of MFS Communications and CompuServe, also said it will spend $2.4 billion to acquire Brooks Fiber Properties. Brooks' (BFPT) stock soared 8-5/16 to 55. [snip] Full story at www.cnnfn.com This is a clip from the CNNfn web page and I was looking for comments on this offer from other readers. Do you think this will be allowed (FCC or Justice Dept.)? Will this make WorldCom an unbeatable force in the telecom world? Any thoughts would be appreciated. Chris ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 21:08:14 EDT From: Danny Burstein Subject: NYS PSC Recommends "Overlay" For New NYC Area Code As an FYI, I testified at one of the public hearings, in favor of an overlay (as opposed to to a geographic split). I added two suggestions to the overlay concept: a) I suggested that given some recent Federal court decisions, the FCC may have acted ultra-vires in their refusal to allow anyone new area codes which were exclusive to wireless, and I therefore recommended that another one be set aside in the NYC area for specifically thet group. (Currently the "917" code is the only one in the nation which is exclusive to pagers/cellulars [1] b) I also requested that instead of using the plebian area code of "6-4-6" which is kind of a throw-away, that they adopt the "6-9-2" one and overlay it citywide. I felt this would be particularly fitting for NYC and might even generate its own demand... [1] 917 is also used by some voicemail groups and some specilized other purposes. ************* STATE OF NEW YORK Public Service Commission John F. OMara, Chairman Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223 Further Details: (518) 474-7080 http://www.dps.state.ny.us FOR RELEASE: IMMEDIATELY 97076/96C1158 PSC FAVORS USE OF NEW "646" AREA CODE FOR MANHATTAN AS AN OVERLAY Albany, September 30 -- The New York State Public Service Commission today began its consideration of methods for providing a long term supply of phone numbers for Manhattan and indicated that an overlay of a new 646 area code over the current 212 code appeared preferable to splitti ng Manhattan into two area codes. Similarly, the Commission indicated its preference for using an overlay when necessary in the near future to provide new local numbers in the 718 area code serving the other boro ughs of New York City. However, before making a final decision, the Commission directed its staff and the parties to provide additional information on an outstanding competitive issue by the end of October. The overlay approach has significant advantages because it avoids forced number changes, it will not impose unnecessary expenses on existing businesses for reprinting advertising a nd other material, and it prevents potentially controversial geographic divisions, noted Public Service C ommission Chairman John F. OMara. However, it is critical that the overlay be implemented in a competitively neutral manner. During the course of the Commissions proceeding, two main alternatives for addressing the imminent exhaustion of local phone numbers in Manhattan were developed: the use of an overlay and the separation of Manhattan into two area codes at 23rd Street. Either proposal would use 646 as a new area code -- the one designated for use in Manhattan by the national North American Numbering Plan. Staff determined that the advantages of the overlay outweighed the disadvantages raised in the case and that the overlay was preferable to the geographic split of Manhattan into two area codes. In addition, the weight of public comment solicited by the Commission from throughout New York City favored using overlays, with strong support coming from senior citizens, the handicapped and businesses. An overlay in Manhattan would superimpose 646 over the existing 212 area code. In doing so, it would allow all current customers to retain their existing phone numbers and their cu rrent area code, thereby eliminating the expense and inconvenience of changing phone numbers. Further, it would provide the longest period of relief, estimated to be about 6.5 years. By contrast, a geographic split of Manhattan into two area codes at 23rd Street would force over one million customers to change their area code, with thousands of them also forced to change their local 7-digit telephone number as well. These changes could be confusing, especially to the elderly and visually-impaired, and expensive for business customers who would have to change part or all of th eir telephone numbers. The Commission postponed final action today on adopting the overlay approach pending the outcome of a special staff/industry task force examination of number pooling, an outstanding competitive issue. Number pooling refers to the process of pooling all remaining, unassigned local numbers in the 212 area code and assigning them to customers on an as-needed basis without regard to the company serving the customer. The Commission today endorsed staffs belief that resolution of this issue, in conjunction with the scheduled implementation of permanent number portability, will alleviate competitors concerns about the overlay. The Commission directed staff to lead a task force in developing a plan to implement number pooling as soon as possible. Staff will report back to the Commission on its progress by the end of October. The Commission also expressed concern about the existing Federal Communication s Commission (FCC) requirement that all calls throughout the area covered must be completed using 11-digit dialing (1+area code+local number) when an overlay is implemented. According to the FCC, this requirement is designed to ensure that competing local phone companies are not disadvantaged by a system that may result in calls by or to their customers being more likely to entail dialing 11 digits because the company was assigned more 646 numbers. While Manhattan customers are accustomed to 11-digit local dialing for calls to other boroughs, the Commission believes that the FCC requirement for 11-digit dialing for all calls within Manhattan would be inconvenient, confusing and would be unnecessary if number pooling and permanen t number portability are implemented as envisioned by the Commission. As such, the Chairman directed counsel to take all necessary steps to avoid the imposition of mandatory 11-digit dialing. In developing its proposal to use an overlay to address the exhaustion of local phone numbers in Manhattan, Commission staff worked collaboratively with industry and consumer representatives and considered comments from six public statement hearings held throughout New York City. In addition, staff made more than 15 presentations to residential and business organizations in Manhattan and the other boroughs. Staff also participated in eight meetings of community and small bus iness leaders, observed focus group meetings sponsored by NYNEX (now Bell Atlantic), and provided information at two large expositions in New York City (the Getting Down to Business Fair and the Black Expo). In announcing it also favored the use of an overlay for the current 718 area code, the Commission recognized that, although estimates vary, that area code could run out of local numbers as early as 1999. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #269 ******************************