Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA17367; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 21:25:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 21:25:02 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710120125.VAA17367@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #280 TELECOM Digest Sat, 11 Oct 97 21:25:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 280 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson GTE InTRA-LATA 101-XXXX+ Carrier-ID Codes (Mark J. Cuccia) Chicago Non-Emergency (was: Baltimore's 3-1-1 Service) (Adam H. Kerman) Phone Firms Get OK to Pool Bad Payment Data (Lisa Hancock) Payphone Prices Going Up (Linc Madison) Re: Wall Street Journal: Electric Outlets Could Be Link (John Nagle) Re: Wall Street Journal: Electric Outlets Could Be Link (Ed Ellers) Re: Wall Street Journal: Electric Outlets Could Be Link (H. Peter Anvin) Re: Wall Street Journal: Electric Outlets Could Be Link (Darrell Greenwood) Re: Wall Street Journal: Electric Outlets Could Be Link (John B. Hines) Re: Combining Analog Lines (Bruce Hanson) 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: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: GTE InTRA-LATA 101-XXXX+ Carrier-ID Codes Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:09:13 -0500 Organization: Tulane University Jack Decker wrote: > Mark J. Cuccia wrote: >> Ameritech does have some 101-XXXX codes, which _might_ happen to be >> dialable for intra-LATA calls from those GTE central offices. The >> following 101-XXXX+ codes are assigned to Ameritech, according to the >> FCC's latest list of US/NANP numbering/dialing information: >> 101-5475+, 101-5606+, 101-6123+; and for Ameritech's "Long-Distance" >> (future inTER-LATA toll? Ameritech's Cellular inTER-LATA toll?) there >> is 101-0113+ (10-113+ in the older/shorter, soon to be obsolete format). > None of these work here - after dialing the code it immediately cuts > to an "I'm sorry, your call cannot be completed as dialed" recording. > Except for a very short period of time a few years back when GTE > experimented with letting Ameritech handle their toll calls, Ameritech > toll has never been accessible from GTE exchanges (at least not in > this area, although I think there were a few geographically isolated > GTE exchanges that have always connected to Ameritech for toll). > 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 > 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! 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?) 101-5483+ 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) 101-5448+ GTE Internal Telecommunications Services (I have no idea what they intend this code for) Also, even though you have someone else as your primary inTRA-LATA toll carrier (since Michigan probably allows this now), and I am guessing that you chose MCI since you mention them in an earlier post for your primary inTER-LATA choice, when you dial (single) '0', I assume that you are getting a GTE Telco Operator for 'local' assistance (rather than Ameritech). She _might_ probably be able to assist you on inTRA-LATA toll calls (although probably at Operator assisted rates, unless you indicate a 'trouble' condition). Have you asked a GTE (single) '0' Operator what GTE's inTRA-LATA toll access code is, for such calls in your case? 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? 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! 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. I know that BellSouth's "CIC" for inTRA-LATA (and it does work work in Louisiana, even though we can't yet choose someone other than BellSouth for _primary_ inTRA-LATA toll, although we _can_ dial 10[1X]XXX+ codes of other carriers) toll is 101-5124+. Dialing 101-5124-0(#/0) routes to the _same_ BellSouth inTRA-LATA "TOPS" operator/card services as dialing single '0' does. Where private COCOT payphones allow the longer "CIC" 101-XXXX+ codes, I use BellSouth's 101-5124+0+ten-digits-local to place "coinless" local calls billed to card. It can be cheaper than using coins at the COCOTs. I also avoid using the COCOT company's chosen A/O/Sleaze entity's overpriced card/operator rates. And BTW, internal-chip COCOT payphones and A/O/Slime now includes BellSouth's public phone subsidiary, with their COCOT-like phones and their expensive A/O/Slime, "Tel-(dis)Trust". While your toll calls, within your LATA, GTE-to-GTE don't even seem to route via an Ameritech tandem, toll calls to an Ameritech area in your LATA do have to route via the Ameritech inTRA-LATA tandem, _unless_ the GTE inTRA-LATA tandem which serves your GTE local exchange also happens to have direct trunkings to Ameritech's local central offices. I'm going to have to check my outdated (circa 1990/91) edition of the LERG, volume 3 (Ameritech LATAs) to verify this, though. Please let us know about these GTE "CIC-codes" - do they properly work from your area, what the GTE '0' operator tells you, and check for any documentation or ballot, etc. Now, for the info on the FCC's numbering/dialing info page: It's called the "FCC-State-Link" part of their website, under the Common-Carrier Bureau Industry Analysis Reports: www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/fcc-link.html scroll down to "Telephone Numbering Facts" www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/number.html There are several files there ... the most recent being in Adobe Acrobat (.pdf), and some older .zip files which when 'unzipped' are spreadsheets in Lotus .wk3 format and text in WordPerfect 5.1 format. NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x-) NWORLAIYCM1 (BellSouth-Mobility Hughes-GMH-2000 Cellular-MTSO NOL) NWORLAMA0GT (BellSouth DMS-100/200 fg-B/C/D Accss-Tandem "Main" 504+) NWORLAMA20T (BellSouth DMS-200 TOPS:Opr-Srvcs-Tandem "Main" 504+053+) NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll 060-T / 504-2T "Main" 504+) JCSNMSPS06T (AT&T #5ESS OSPS:Operator-Services-Tandem 601-0T 601+121) MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 21:52:26 CDT From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Chicago Non-Emergency (was: Baltimore's 3-1-1 Service) In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In Chicago, the police tell people to > call 911 for everything. Even if you call for some non-emergency > matter and call direct to the station house, the people who answer > there say if you want to talk to a police officer you need to dial > 911 to get one dispatched. Meanwhile, the people who staff the 911 > center constantly complain about how people call them for even the > most minor things and blame the citizens for abusing 911. So if you > call back to the station house they refer you right back to 911, etc. > I wish they could get their act together. PAT] Correction, Pat. Chicago DOES have non-emergency numbers: police 312 746-6000; fire 312 744-6666. It has NOT been my experience to have been referred to the 911 emergency call center by my local police district. When my Network Interface box on the outside of my apartment building was broken into, I called my local police district (the one that used to be Summerdale!). The desk sergeant wouldn't take my complaint, and told me to call the police non-emergency number. And, no, he couldn't transfer my call, despite the vast amount of money that the City has spent over the years for a private network serving all city agencies, libraries, and park district offices. I was able to make a "criminal damage to property" complaint right over the phone (my lock was broken), and would have been able to make a "theft of services" complaint if I'd later discovered billing irregularities. You CANNOT make complaints over the phone to the 911 call center. ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Phone Firms Get OK to Pool Bad Payment Data Date: 11 Oct 1997 03:54:07 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS The {Philadelphia Inquirer} reported that: The U.S. Justice Department gave phone companies permission recently to compile and exchange information on people who don't pay their long distance bills. AT&T, MCI, Sprint and other companies would supply such information to an independent clearinghouse. The companies would then go to the clearinghouse to find out whether a potential customer has defaulted on long distance charges. Neither the Justice Department nor individual phone company representatives had industrywide information on how much money is lost in unpaid long distance bills. [There was nothing mentioned about protection for consumers from inaccurate/erroneous information getting into this central database.] ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Payphone Prices Going Up Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 01:47:45 -0700 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! I was at the grocery store on Tuesday, picking up a few items for a friend who is sick in bed. I ran into a few unanticipated options in selecting the items he requested, so I figured the easiest thing to do was to call and inquire whether he wanted his applesauce with or without sugar, cinnamon, and/or cranberries. I had already put some of the items in the basket, so I didn't want to leave the store entirely, lest my stuff be put back on the shelves before I returned. Not to worry -- there is a payphone right at the entrance to the store. "Effective 10/7/97, local calls 35 cents" was plastered on the phone near the coin slot. Sure enough, I had to pay $0.35 for this call. California law is explicit and clear: local payphone calls are to be no more than $0.20 for the first 15 minutes. However, the federal law now pre-empts local authority, even though that pre-emption is blatantly unconstitutional: a local call is clearly INTRAstate commerce, and thus not subject to federal regulation. Congress and the FCC have unquestionably overstepped their legal authority. And today we see the FCC continuing with its ridiculous rules on reimbursement to payphone owners for calls to toll-free numbers. First of all, the per-call charge is ridiculously high, even at $0.28, and secondly, it shouldn't be a flat fee per call. I think that a rate of $0.05 for the first minute and $0.01 per additional minute would be entirely reasonable and proper, although I still don't grant the point that it's reasonable or proper to reimburse payphone owners ANYTHING for this service. Every single payphone owner entered the business knowing full well that they would have some non-revenue calls, so their crying and wailing influences me not the least. Why should *I* pay more to give these companies something with NOTHING given in return? Payphone deregulation has been an unmitigated failure, far beyond any problems with deregulation of other aspects of the telephone system. What benefits has the CONSUMER seen from payphone deregulation?? ** 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" << [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The only benefit perhaps to the consumer is that some COCOT operators do try to actually be competitive in environments where other phones are located. As I mentioned a couple days ago, the COCOTS I had installed at the place of business only charge 25 cents and I intend to keep them that way as long as possible. When you see a privately operated pay phone why don't you courteously suggest to the owner that if he were to set local call prices so low it was 'almost a giveaway' it would serve to promote a lot of goodwill for his establishment. It could even be tied into a promotion for the store with a sign saying, 'not sure what to buy or how much to get? Call back home to find out; this phone set at a low cost as a courtesy to assist our customers.' ... or words to that effect. The phones I had installed for the guy here in Skokie have already generated much good will for him; i.e. people arriving on the bus late at night who need a taxicab for example need only deposit 25 cents and press *2 to get one. The speed dial on the phone then does this routine: 6731000,,,1,1,1,cocot-number,1,1,1,2 and the taxicab interactive voice response unit says, 'thank you, your cab will arrive in approximatly 5-10 minutes. You may hang up now.' What that does is dials the taxicab number; pauses for 3x2 seconds to wait for an answer; yes I have a touch tone phone (do not need to wait for a live operator); yes I want to order a cab (as opposed to package delivery service or rechecking status on a pending order); it will come to a residence or place of business (as opposed to airport or hotel); the number of the phone placing the call is checked in the database to find the address where to send the cab; number of persons traveling (I just had them default this to one, it does not really matter if two or three people also ride); going to same community (a choice could have been [2] going to nearby community, but again it does not matter); 'driver might not allow smoking [1] okay [2] must be non-smoking [3] must allow smoking'; no I do not need to have this order repeated back to me for verification (a choice could have been [1] repeat this to me to be sure it is correct). Each comma puts in a two-second pause. I have *3 speed dial the toll free number for Greyhound information and *4 dial the number for local transit information. *5 calls a time and weather message. *2 *4 *5 cost 25 cents each. A sign on the phone indicates these options. I think there does exist the possi- bility that some payphone owners will use them as ways to build and maintain goodwill with customers. You might suggest it to merchants you trade with. PAT] ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal: Electric Outlets Could Be Link Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 04:14:57 GMT aljon@worldnet.att.net (John Stahl) writes: > The latest from Nortel has startled the ILEC's (and probably a whole > lot of others in the business) with the announcement of Internet > service over the electrical power grid. Several with whom I've talked > with (I travel around to the Independent Telcos in the Northeast US), > have already contacted Nortel to find out what they have to offer as > sort of a defensive mechanism. After all, if DATA can be sent via the > power lines, can VOICE be far behind? I have doubts about transmitting data over power lines all the way from the substation. Doing it from the pole transformer is feasible, but transmitting all the way back to the substation would be tough. It has been done, though, although the first scheme to do it (for meter reading) involved shorting the power line for a microsecond or so, which produced enough of a spike to make it through the pole transformer. If the system involves extra gear at each pole transformer, though, that's quite feasible. People have been sending stuff short distances over power lines for decades, and recently the data rates have been going up. Check out the Intellon system (U.S. patent #5574748). A scheme with fibre-optic lines from substation to pole transformer, with an interface box at the pole and plug-in boxes in the home would be quite feasible with current technology. John Nagle ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal: Electric Outlets Could Be Link Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:35:09 -0400 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Bill Ranck wrote: "Hmmm, let's see what kind of data rates and how do they get by the local tranformers?" Dunno. But this reminds me of a scheme that was tested in the early 1960s to put civil defense buzzers in every home and business to augment sirens, which miss many people for various reasons. It was called NEAR (I've forgotten the wording). The system superimposed a 240 Hz signal on the AC lines going out from substations in a given area, that frequency being low enough to pass through the transformers. Delco Electronics made the buzzers, which looked like today's common "wall wart" AC adapters except that they didn't have cords; the buzzers were tuned to 240 Hz and would go off if that frequency was present. There was also a related proposal to make AM radios that would turn themselves on when the 240 Hz signal was received. One problem they discovered was that SCR-based light dimmers -- which work by cutting off the power for a portion of each half-cycle -- often generated a harmonic at 240 Hz that would falsely trigger the NEAR buzzers. The folks working on the system decided to change to a frequency that wasn't harmonically related to 60 Hz -- using a new signal generator that, ironically, used SCRs itself -- but the system seems to have disappeared without a trace shortly afterward. ------------------------------ From: hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal: Electric Outlets Could Be Link Date: 11 Oct 1997 08:15:24 GMT Organization: Transmeta Corporation, Santa Clara CA Reply-To: hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) > Hmmm, let's see what kind of data rates and how do they get by > the local tranformers? They usually don't -- draw fibre away from there -- but they already have the rights-of-way for the trunk lines, and that's a *heck* of a lot less digging needed. hpa ------------------------------ From: Darrell_Greenwood@mindlink.net (Darrell Greenwood) Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal: Electric Outlets Could Be Link Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 02:26:50 -0700 Organization: URL: In article , ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu (Bill Ranck) wrote: > Hmmm, let's see what kind of data rates and how do they get by > the local tranformers? FWIW, another article gave me the ah-ha. North America 8 to 12 houses on a transformer. UK 300 houses on a transformer. I(squared) rules. Cheers, Darrell Greenwood, Vancouver, BC Darrell_Greenwood@mindlink.net My web homepage... http://www.nyx.net/~dgreenw/ ------------------------------ From: jhines@enteract.com (John B. Hines) Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal: Electric Outlets Could Be Link Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 12:34:48 GMT Organization: EnterAct L.L.C. Turbo-Elite News Server aljon@worldnet.att.net (John Stahl) wrote: [Stuff on data access via power lines in the UK snipped] > You note that their plans seem to not include the US market -- wanna bet? > Notice the statement about bandwidth -- will they stop at data? How about > video and voice and who knows what else? From what I saw, the UK puts more houses per local transformer than US practices. This makes the cost much higher here, for the extra equipment needed. ------------------------------ From: Bruce Hanson Subject: Re: Combining Analog Lines Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 13:50:16 -0700 Organization: U S WEST International Systems Group A company called Ramp Networks makes a product that may do what you need. It is an analog router that can distribute the load of an internet connection over up to three modems. It does this by assigning TCP connections over the most available modem. A drawback is that you can only get one modem's worth of bandwidth for any one connection. It also has a built-in four port 10Base-T hub as well. It will work with basic PPP accounts that an ISP provides, you need one account per modem, which could eliminate your need for anything at the ISP's location. The product is called the WebRamp M3, and more info can be found at: http://www.rampnet.com I'm not affiliated with them in any way, I'm just a satisfied customer. Bruce ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #280 ******************************