Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA19568; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 22:56:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 22:56:07 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710110256.WAA19568@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #279 TELECOM Digest Fri, 10 Oct 97 22:56:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 279 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Another Failure of the Telecom Act (Marty Tennant) Re: Bell Atlantic Toll Alerting in Massachusetts (Linc Madison) 311 vs 911 in MA (Peter Simpson) Re: 101-XXXX For Traditional Intra-LATA LEC Toll (Al Varney) Re: WhoWhere Announcement (Andrew Olechny) Re: GTE InTRA-LATA 101-XXXX+ Carrier-ID Codes (Jack Decker) Last Laugh! Stop the Phones! (Chris Moffett) One More Laugh! The Latest World Com Press Release (Michael Hartley) 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: Marty Tennant Subject: Another Failure of the Telecom Act Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:51:55 -0400 From Telecom A.M., Oct. 10, 1997 FCC SAYS STATES DON'T HAVE TO ARBITRATE DISPUTES FOR UNAUTHORIZED CLECS The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has ruled that state commissions are under no legal obligation to arbitrate local interconnection disputes involving a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) that hasn't been authorized to do business in the state. On that basis, the FCC denied petitions filed in August by Low Tech Designs Inc., in which the CLEC asked the FCC to assume jurisdiction over arbitrations by the Georgia, Illinois, and South Carolina commissions on grounds that the state commissions had failed to act on Low Tech's arbitration requests as required by Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. But the FCC determined that the states had fulfilled their statutory responsibilities when they ruled, within the prescribed time limits, that Low Tech lacked legal standing to petition for state arbitration because it hadn't received the required state certifications author- izing the company to provide local services. --------------- The FCC's refusal to assume responsibility for the arbitrations that my company sought, after legally entering into negotiations with three ILECs as a requesting telecommunications carrier, is another failure to act, adding insult to injury. The FCC's own rules state that it would be a violation of an ILEC's duty to negotiate in good faith for that ILEC to condition negotiations upon a requesting telecommunications carrier first obtaining State certifications (Duty to Negotiate- 47 CFR 51.301(c)(4)). Since arbitration is the legal remedy for failed negotiation, the FCC has taken a mighty duck at enforcing their own rules. If a new entrant requests negotiations with an ILEC prior to obtaining state certification, as the law allows, the ILEC would know beforehand that the failure of the negotiations wouldn't lead to arbitration, assuming the new entrant doesn't file for certification before or during the negotiations. This obviates the intent of the FCC rule and encourages halfhearted negotiations. If a requesting telecommunications carrier doesn't have to be certified by a state in order to negotiate with an ILEC, by the same token, aribitration with the same ILEC must not be conditioned upon State certification. The FCC has refused to enforce their own rules, and in doing so has shown another example of the failure of the 1996 Act. The fallout of this ruling, if left to stand, is that small entities, such as LTD, must first jump thru state certification regulatory hoops before they are on a firm legal basis to engage an ILEC in negotiations. This is exactly what the above FCC rule was written to avoid. This FCC interpretation has several Catch-22's built into it. In the case of Georgia, their state law allows up to 180 days for the Commission to rule on a certification request. Since you must file for arbitration within 135 to 160 days after the start of interconnection negotiations, you are presented with an unwarranted timing issue that has the effect of retarding entry and negotiations with ILEC's. When do you start negotiations with the ILEC in Georgia? After you file for certification? After you receive certification? 45 days after filing for certification?? Of course, all this speculation is absurd. You can start negotiations any time you are ready to start them. This is the law!!! LTD argued that small entities, particularly ones with entreprenuerial concepts, and with little capital and resources for expensive legal fees, must not be saddled with unnecessary regulatory hurdles to jump thru. The proper sequence of entry events should be: 1. Engage an ILEC into negotiations as a requesting telecommunications carrier. 2. If, after 135 days, you can't agree on an interconnection agreement, file for arbitration. 3. Arbitrate and hope that you get what you are looking for. 4. If you do, use this success to attact capital for your business plan. 5. File for state certification. 6. File tariffs. 7. Offer services to the public. In the case of LTD, we also argued that until an arbitration was held, and the conditions sought were obtained, LTD did not have the basis for putting together a complete business plan that would result in the need for state certification. Since the law was suppose to allow entry by any entity, remove barriers to entry, and promote competition, the FCC's ruling in my company's case resurrects the same old barriers that were suppose to come tumbling down. LTD engaged BellSouth, GTE and Ameritech in negotiations back in August of 1996. Over a year later, LTD is no closer to entry than it was when it started. The FCC rules have not been enforced, and the FCC has refused to stand up for the rights of new entrant requesting telecommunications carriers to enter this market in the most logical and efficient manner possible. So much for the entreprenuerial spirit being alive and well in telecommunications. So much for the law. So much for an FCC interested in new entrants challenging the old monopolists. LTD will challenge the FCC ruling, and is seeking support from public interest groups that are interested in seeing this abuse of the law remedied. marty tennant - president - low tech designs, inc.(tm) "Bringing Technology Down to Earth"(sm) 1204 Saville St., Georgetown, SC 29440 803 527-4485 voice / 803 527-7783 fax ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Toll Alerting in Massachusetts Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 23:35:52 -0700 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! In article , Greg Monti wrote: >> I suspect that many of the folks who are against "toll alerting" have >> never had to deal with equipment that dials numbers from a directory >> maintained elsewhere. With such a setup, you want the default to be >> trying to dial 7 digits if the exchange isn't explicitly listed in the >> translation table as a "local" prefix. That way you don't inadvertently >> make LD calls. > It depends on what your objective is. If you want it to be cheap > above all other criteria, you want toll alerting. If you want it to > be fast above all other criteria (all calls go through on the first > try), you don't want alerting. Nonsense. Full toll alerting does not interfere in the least with having all calls go through on the first try. There is nothing in full toll alerting that forbids dialing 1+ on a local call. Full toll alerting only means that 1+ is required on toll calls, not that it is forbidden on non-toll calls. Why are there so many idiot states that forbid dialing 1+ on local calls? There is absolutely no justification for it, under any circumstances. Once upon a time, some old switches would bill toll charges for a local call that was dialed 1+, but that doesn't happen any more. Any switch now in service can reasonably be required by law to no-bill a local call even if it's dialed with 1+. All states should immediately *PERMIT* any call to be dialed as 1+10D, irrespective of area code or toll status, irrespective of whether the state has full or partial or no toll alerting. > For better or for worse, four states were converted to full > non-alerting during the 1994 preparation for interchangeable area > codes: PA, NY, CA and IL (some of these had partial alerting before). > Something like one third of all US phones are now non-toll-alerted. With very few isolated exceptions, California has always been full non-alerting. There were even pathological examples where techs programmed the switches to forbid 1+ even on FNPA toll calls, because the Official Instructions said to dial 7D for all calls in the same area code, or 10D for all calls in any other area code. >> And trying to find out where an exchange that doesn't belong >> to your LEC is can be *very* frustrating ... > Some earlier posts on this Digest noted that in some areas (Illinois, > I think), the local Bell company is refusing to tell (even when asked) > whether any particular prefix belonging to a competitor is local or > toll. Messy. Also illegal and a breach of tariffs and/or contract. The local Bell company is required to tell you what its charges are if you use its service to call a given number, whether that number terminates on their own network or a competitor's. ** 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: Peter_Simpson@3com.com (Peter Simpson) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 06:34:32 -0400 Subject: 311 vs 911 in MA I live in suburban eastern MA. The 311 idea hasn't hit here yet (hey, we're hardly used to 508 and it's time to split again). It seems that when 911 came in, the Police stopped "advertising" their regular number. There was an informal standard around here that not all towns followed, but police was usually NXX-1212 and fire was usually NXX-2323. There was usually only one prefix per town, so you (almost) always knew the emergency numbers without having to look them up. Sort of an early version of 911. Anyway, these numbers used to be listed in the front of the phone book, and also inside, under the town listing for police, usually in big bold print. Underneath that listing was usually a "business" or "non-emergency" number. Well, when 911 came in, all that was history. When you look up the police, there's only one number, a big "911". No alternatives. If I didn't know the old "1212" standard, and the earliest issued NXX prefix (most towns now have two, three or more!) I wouldn't have an alternative but to call 911 and waste someone's time. As it is, I call the 1212 number, tell the person answering that this isn't an emergency, and take care of my business. Why these "alternate" numbers are no longer published is a mystery to me. Peter ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: 101-XXXX For Traditional Intra-LATA LEC Toll Date: 10 Oct 1997 13:01:38 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , Jack Decker wrote: > Where GTE really falls down is in their customer service - it is still > very difficult to get a correct answer about anything without jumping > through a lot of hoops (trying to find the correct 101XXXX code for > GTE's intraLATA toll is a perfect example; even their "Action Line" > couldn't seem to pry this bit of information loose from the switch > technicians. .... > The thing that I am curious about is this: As I understand it (and > feel free to correct me if I am wrong), if you do not have GTE as your > default toll carrier, they have to load a PIC code into the switch for > your preferred carrier. And it is possible to have NO default toll > carrier (both interLATA and intraLATA), in which case no toll call > will go through unless you dial an access code first. So, it would > seem that there MUST be a code for GTE intraLATA toll, that would be ^^^^ not true, see below > the default code used in the switch if you don't ask for another > carrier or specify that you don't want a default carrier. I would > guess that the switch technicians know what that code is, but > apparently they aren't telling! Switches generally implement two levels of routing. One is based on dialed digits only -- no carrier code is needed or used. The other is routing based on carrier code. Dialed digit analysis can trigger carrier routing (using an interLATA or intraLATA PIC), or the customer can force it with a Carrier Access Code (CAC=101XXXX). In the latter case, digit analysis will screen the call for valid digits, a type (intraLATA, etc.) and other attributes before deciding to honor the CAC, block the call or even ignore the CAC. [For example, 10XXXX-911 will ignore the CAC.] The implementation varies between switches, but in general there need NOT be a dialable intraLATA Carrier Access Code for the "LEC". When the "intraLATA Toll Presubscription" capability is first turned on, no per-line data changes in the switch. The ABSENCE of an "intraLATA PIC" assignment on a line (initially true for all lines) implies "use non-carrier routing", that is, route based on just the dialed digits. It is possible to set a line to "no intraLATA Presubscribed Carrier", but that's a special setting of the intraLATA PIC, not the absence of an intraLATA PIC. In addition, even when a LEC assigns itself an XXXX code, it is possible to indicate "not dialable" as an attribute of the XXXX code. (Some IXCs don't want casual-dialed calls, only pre-subscribed.) Thus it MAY BE that GTE just doesn't know its own XXXX code. Or, more likely, they have no XXXX code or a non-dialable XXXX code. That would allow them to say, in effect: "If you want to have some other carrier carry your Toll calls, fine. But don't plan on using me for such calls ever again. I don't want casual customers." An alternative would be to have an XXXX code, and indicate casual-calling (when you are not pre-subscribed to the LEC) will incur an extra $5/month billing charge for the first use in any month. But that probably requires PUC hearings, etc. So far as I know, no PUC that orders IntraLATA Toll Presubscription also orders the LEC to have an XXXX code and accept casual dialing of Toll calls. Ameritech probably does it because they feel there is more profit from casual calls (in spite of the overhead) than from the customers that might keep Ameritech for intraLATA Toll only because they know they can't casual-dial them. Al Varney - just my opinion ------------------------------ From: ccoprao@acmex.gatech.edu (Andrew Olechny) Subject: Re: WhoWhere Announcement Date: 10 Oct 1997 08:28:38 GMT Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology TELECOM Digest Editor asked where to find the new Internet Directory Assistance web page. Go to: http://www.whowhere.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 21:32:48 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: GTE InTRA-LATA 101-XXXX+ Carrier-ID Codes At 04:09 PM 10/10/97 -0500, Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > Again, from the FCC's website regarding US/NANP numbering/dialing info, > (and some people have emailed me asking me about the particular URL at > the FCC's site, which I will give further down), the following "CICs" > (Carrier Identification/Access Codes) assigned to GTE are as follows: > 101-5249+ > GTE Telephone Operations > (could THIS be inTRA-LATA GTE as an incumbent LEC?) "We're sorry, your call cannot be completed as dialed ..." (after dialing just the PIC code). > 101-5483+ 101-5483+0 yields dial tone spurt followed by "WilTel". That is the company that I could not recall that provides GTE's long distance. > and 101-6224+ > GTE Card Services dba GTE Long Distance > (I think this is for GTE-marketed "prepaid" cards, which is most likely > a resale of some other toll [usually inTER-LATA] carrier) "We're sorry, your call cannot be completed as dialed ..." (after dialing just the PIC code). > 101-5448+ > GTE Internal Telecommunications Services > (I have no idea what they intend this code for) "We're sorry, your call cannot be completed as dialed ..." (after dialing just the PIC code). > Have you asked a GTE (single) '0' Operator what GTE's inTRA-LATA toll > access code is, for such calls in your case? Yes. She had no idea what I was talking about. > Also, when you told GTE > that you were going to change from GTE (in association with Ameritech) > to someone else for your primary inTRA-LATA toll carrier, had you ever > received any documentation (ballot? list of carrier choices?) from GTE? No, they were not required by the Michigan Public Service Commission to provide balloting for intraLATA toll, so of course they didn't. However, there was publicity in the local news media when intraLATA toll competition became available, and I think I recall seeing a printed notice on the bill to the effect that you could choose a carrier of intraLATA toll when it became available in my exchange. I think the thought was that the carriers would probably solicit their own interLATA toll customers to switch to them for intraLATA toll, thus why should the LEC spend the money to send out ballots? > Also, what is the 101-XXXX+ "CIC" code that GTE has told you to use (the > one which seems to route you to some _other_ carrier that GTE is > reselling)? I _guess_ that it is the 101-5483+ listed above as the "GTE > Card Services dba GTE Long Distance". Note that the 483 spells out GTE! Correct, and that is the one that goes to "WilTel." > One thing you might do to verify the GTE 101-XXXX+ codes listed above to > see if any of them are actually able to route to GTE local and > inTRA-LATA toll is to dial 101-XXXX+0(#/0), and see if you get the same > operator as your GTE local single '0' operator. That's exactly how I've been testing the various codes that have been suggested. Only the 101-5483 code gives me anything other than the local switch recording saying that my call cannot be completed as dialed, and as I have noted, that goes to WilTel. Jack ------------------------------ From: Chris Moffett Subject: Last Laugh! Stop the Phones! Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:13:00 -0400 This may give everyone a little smile. The copyright information is at the bottom. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, we have run this story here at least a couple times previously over the past few years, and I do not recall them getting copyright okay from me but I'll include theirs none the less. The story on the one hand is funny, but at the same time sort of sad. It is one thing, I suppose, to mess up the reservations for a corporate meeting, but quite another to cause a miserable mess for a young couple on their wedding day -- what should be a happy time for them. Anyway, here we go again ... PAT] From: Just4laughs@USA.Net To: Just4Laughs@USA.Net Subject: Stop the Phones! Date: Thursday, October 09, 1997 20:07 Stop the Phones! Phone Won't Stop Ringing? Here's What You Do Leola Starling of Ribrock, Tenn., had a serious telephone problem. But unlike most people she did something about it. The brand-new $10 million Ribrock Plaza Motel opened nearby and had acquired almost the same telephone number as Leola. From the moment the motel opened, Leola was besieged by calls not for her. Since she had the same phone number for years, she felt that she had a case to persuade the motel management to change its number. Naturally, the management refused claiming that it could not change its stationery. The phone company was not helpful, either. A number was a number, and just because a customer was getting someone else's calls 24 hours a day didn't make it responsible. After her pleas fell on deaf ears, Leola decided to take matters into her own hands. At 9 o'clock the phone rang. Someone from Memphis was calling the motel and asked for a room for the following Tuesday. Leoloa said, "No problem. How many nights?" A few hours later Dallas checked in. A secretary wanted a suite with two bedrooms for a week. Emboldened, Leola said the Presidential Suite on the 10th floor was available for $600 a night. The secretary said that she would take it and asked if the hotel wanted a deposit. "No, that won't be necessary," Leola said. "We trust you." The next day was a busy one for Leola. In the morning, she booked an electric appliance manufacturers' convention for Memorial Day weekend, a college prom and a reunion of the 82nd Airborne veterans from World War II. She turned on her answering machine during lunchtime so that she could watch the O.J. Simpson trial, but her biggest challenge came in the afternoon when a mother called to book the ballroom for her daughter's wedding in June. Leola assured the woman that it would be no problem and asked if she would be providing the flowers or did she want the hotel to take care of it. The mother said that she would prefer the hotel to handle the floral arrangements. Then the question of valet parking came up. Once again Leola was helpful. "There's no charge for valet parking, but we always recomend that the client tips the drivers." Within a few months, the Ribrock Plaza Motel was a disaster area. People kept showing up for weddings, bar mitzvahs, and Sweet Sixteen parties and were all told there were no such events. Leola had her final revenge when she read in the local paper that the motel might go bankrupt. Her phone rang, and an executive from Marriott said, "We're prepared to offer you $200,000 for the motel." Leola replied. "We'll take it, but only if you change the telephone number." --------------------------------------------- Just 4 Laughs! A FREE Humor To Your E-mail! About 4 e-mails per day, most every day. If you would like to receive Just 4 Laughs! Send an e-mail message to me or go to the Web site. List-Subscribe: Web-Interface: http://www.GeoCities.com/Hollywood/Set/6993 ~~~~~~~~~~ Do you need another e-mail account? They are FREE! Go to the Just 4 Laughs Home Page, there is a list of FREE e-mail programs. GO to http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/6993 To unsubscribe, forward this message to unsubscribe-just4laughs@lyris.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 11:04:00 +0100 From: Michael Hartley Subject: One More Laugh! The Latest World Com Press Release <...> (API - MoneyWire) WorldCom Inc., of Jackson, Mississippi, has issued a press release confirming recent reports of it's latest blockbuster takeover. John Sidgmore, WorldCom Chief Operating Officer, has announced that a definitive agreement has been reached. The agreement calls for a combination of cash payment and stock swap (Tuesday's close: 35 3/8) of truly behemoth proportions. In what is being hailed as possibly the largest corporate acquisition in history, WorldCom has revised it's previous offer and will pay $30 billion and offer another $100 billion in stock in exchange for England. England is strongly expected to approve the measure. Bernie Ebbers has been quoted as stating "While we were in a buying frenzy I thought that England would provide an excellent launching pad for our new European expansion plans. I thought it would be neat to buy a country". When asked about the incredible press coverage the announcement had created Ebbers response was "It's really not that big of a country, I can't understand what all of the fuss is about". WorldCom's Chief Financial Officer, has stated that no layoffs of English citizens are expected as result of the addition of England to WorldCom's portfolio. This does not include the Royal Family. John Sidgmore has confirmed that the U.K. will definitely be broken up. Ireland's stock has risen 7 points on the Tokyo exchange to a new high at 23 5/8 as a result of the announcement. It has been reported that Prince Charles will not be offered a position with the newly combined entity. He has reportedly forwarded his resume to Holland. Reports are flying that Holland is in the market to pick up a reduced price Prince. The Royal English Navy will now be based in Gulfport, Miss- issippi and will be renamed "The Group of Them Big Ole Boats With Guns", GTBOB. Mr. Ebbers has issued his first corporate directive including England, instructing that all English citizens are to quit speaking in that funny accent. The current English flag will be retired and replaced with the confederate flag. The companies press release states "We believe this acquisition is an important strategic opportunity for our company to meet the challenge of owning the world, and providing to our shareholders the highest return possible". In a related announcement, Bernie Ebbers has announced that Greenwich Mean Time will be shifted to put it in alignment with Jackson, MS (Central Standard Time). The International Date Line will move as a result of the change. The name of "Greenwich Mean Time" will be changed to "Ole' Miss Time". GMT will now be abbreviated OMT. The Campus of Ole' Miss has replaced London as the capitol of England. ******************************************** (MoneyWire is a bogus production of Ludicrous Announcements Inc.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #279 ******************************