Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA28074; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 21:54:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 21:54:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710160154.VAA28074@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #283 TELECOM Digest Wed, 15 Oct 97 21:54:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 283 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "writers.net" by Gach (Rob Slade) International Routing Problems? (Joshua G. Fenton) New Cellular Phone Experience So Far (Lisa Hancock) Do AMPS or PCS Cell Sites Send Site IDs? (Greg Monti) Compuserve Spams Own Customers, Refuses To Stop (Alan Boritz) OAN Tries to Keep Up With Integretel (David Jensen) POTS Acronym (J. DeBert) Communications Technology Magazines (telic@netcom.ca) Re: Payphone Prices Going Up (Stanley Cline) Re: Payphone Prices Going Up (Bruce Wilson) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:52:10 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "writers.net" by Gach BKWRTRNT.RVW 970407 "writers.net", Gary Gach, 1997, 0-7615-0641-1, U$22.00/C$29.95 %A Gary Gach writersnet@hotmail.com %C 3875 Atherton Road, Rocklin, CA 95765 %D 1997 %G 0-7615-0641-1 %I Prima Publishing %O U$22.00/C$29.95 800-632-8676 fax: 916-632-4405 julieb@indy.primapub.com %P 400 p. %T "writers.net: Every Writer's Essential Guide to Online Resources and Opportunities" Writers, much like teachers, potentially can use anything on the net, and can use the net for anything. Most of Gach's book is a list of Web sites and other net resources for different writing genres: science fiction, romance, mystery, poetry, juvenile, screenwriting, playwriting, technical writing, soaps, and journalism. Other chapters deal with the mechanics and business of writing, such as networking, money, research, magazines, books, self-publishing, multimedia, censorship, and copyright. An appendix on Internet applications quickly covers basic net usage. The listings may or may not be annotated and the annotation (if any) is likely to be subjective. The coverage is by no means complete. Under technical writing, alt.books.technical is mentioned, but not biz.books.technical or misc.books.technical. The section on book reviews doesn't mention any of the newsgroups at all, not even the moderated rec.arts.books.reviews. The organization of the book could use some work. Both chapter groupings and the placement of material within chapters are sometimes odd. While the anecdotal style may not be too helpful in a reference, it certainly makes the book a more appealing read. This is particularly true of the success stories of writers who have used the net. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKWRTRNT.RVW 970407 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ From: Joshua G. Fenton Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:33:09 -0600 Subject: International Routing Problems? I'm interested in hearing about people's experiences in completeing international calls to the UK and other countries. I'm having a VERY strange routing problem, and though "Long Distance Repair" is working on it, I know that the experience of these readers will give me a better idea of what's going on. Calls are being placed from 309.793.xxxx (Ameritech) to a UK mobile telephone (Orange Network) on +44.7970.xxxxxx via AT&T. (I currently subscribe to AT&T One Rate International and pay $0.12/min/24hr both to the UK and domestically. Yes, we make calls at all hours. Can anyone top that for $3/mo fee?) The cell number is a new one, and works fine from within the UK. I tried to place the call, and got 'your international call cannot be completed as dialled, please check the number or call your operator to help you 024T'. After 00# and an explanation, the AT&T operator put the call through on the first attempt. A subsequent direct dial attempt completed normally. Next day, get the same 'cannot be completed' recording. Call to AT&T International LD repair gets me to Bobbie (who was wonderful). She got on a tie line of some kind (Digital cross connect, or what?) out of the DesMoines IA 4E tandem, and was able to complete the call, which went to voice mail. However, after several call attempts, she kept getting mixed results. Occasionally a single pitched solid tone, sometimes completion to voice mail. However, calls from 309.793.xxxx still got the 'your international call cannot be completed...' She referred it out, and suggested that there might be a routing problem from the LEC on SOME of the trunks, leaving off a digit or two, indicating the changes in allowable length of phone numbers. However, the solid tone seemed to be a problem on the other end, once the call hit the international gateway. When I asked her why I was getting a message from a DesMoines switch (three hours away) when there is a huge AT&T building just accross the river (four minutes) in Davenport, IA, she responded that Davenport is just a POP, and that the LEC (Ameritech) is responsible for the call until it is handed off at the toll tandem. Questions: *What mechanism do repair personnel use to 'get a line' on a local tandem from wherever they are? *Is it common for the LEC to be responsible for carrying a call such long distances? *What is the occasional solid tone? Is that at the international gateway? *Is there another carrier involved between the international gateway and Orange (or any other cell provider, for that matter?) How does the international gateway work? Thanks in advance! Joshua joshuaf 'at'adc-qc.com ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far Date: 15 Oct 1997 02:02:56 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS Recently I got cellular phone service. I previously posted my experiences dealing with the sales people. Now here's some notes on usage ... 1) How do people drive and talk? For me at least, there's no way I can drive my car and talk on the phone, it's simply too distracting with traffic. Yes, I know when we drive we freely talk to the person next to us, but somehow it's different on the phone. Considering all the times I was nearly hit by a distracted driver talking on the phone, I don't know how people do it. Dialing while driving is impossible, at least on my phone. The buttons are pretty tiny, I noticed on other models the keypad is bigger. (The phone does have a memory, which I assume does help dialing.) 2) The clock is deceiving: I am billed from [send] to [end] in whole minutes. It takes a few seconds to release the call after you hit [end] which can add another minute to the call. If you think the party didn't answer and they did, you are billed for the call. 3) No quick hangups: From the wired phone, I often call people who I know have answering machines, and hang up after 3 rings if I don't feel like leaving a message. You can't do that on a cell phone because of the [end] delay. 4) Ringing delay. When someone calls me, they'll hear at least 3 rings before the cell phone starts to ring. A lot of people these days don't let phones ring very long before hanging up. I must instruct any callers to let it ring a long time. If I'm driving, I'll need a moment to get the phone out and to answer it. In a crowded location, I may not hear the phone. 5) No charge for phone off. I once called someone's cell phone via the roaming number long distance and was billed even though his phone was off. However, I called myself from a pay phone with the phone off, got the recording, and got my money back. Callers can be assured no one will be billed on either end if the cell phone is turned off. 6) Be careful charging/recharging. NiCad batteries the phone uses can develop a memory if not fully discharged then fully charged. They suggested I leave the phone on to run down, then fully recharge it. That makes sense to me, although it is a pain since it does require some advance planning to allow one day to run down and one night to recharge. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 23:02:05 -0400 From: Greg Monti Subject: Do AMPS or PCS Cell Sites Send Site IDs? In many areas, wireless phone companies have set up tracking systems which can be used by law enforcement to "find" cellular callers who have dialed 911 but who don't quite know where they are. Since the cellular company keeps track of which cell site is communicating with a call in progress, they can go to some sort of lookup table and estimate the mobile user's location by looking at the sequence of coverage areas from particular cell towers (or sectors within those towers). Now, I have the opposite question. Does a cell site (or a PCS site for that matter) send out its site ID periodically? I am interested in a receive-only application would need to know periodically where it is located in a general sort of way -- such as the city or county. I am already aware that cellular towers send out a System ID, which tells all the mobiles what company is serving that area. For my purposes, the System ID is not accurate enough (some systems are huge, sprawling affairs that cover several states, every tower of which may send the same System ID). Reply privately to me unless you think there is interest on the NewsGroup. Thanks. Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~gmonti ------------------------------ From: aboritz@cybernex.net (Alan Boritz) Subject: Compuserve Spams Own Customers, Refuses To Stop Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 05:33:24 -0400 Ever have a service provider who insists you read their spam email, while YOU'RE paying connect time charges, and they refuse to stop after you tell them nicely? Compuserve appears to be doing that now. A couple of weeks ago they started sending me the electronic version of the magazine they've been sending me as junk (paper) mail for years, for an account I have there. I emailed customer service and told them to stop sending *any* unsolicited junk email, and they responded that they don't know who sent it (it had their CIS id in the header), but they'd get on it and get back to me. That was on 9/23, and I haven't heard a word since. Then CIS followed up with some propoganda on their AOL purchase deal, and then again with more junk mail about alternative billing plans. I called a customer service person to ask if my witholding payment on my credit card would encourage them to take my request seriously. Although she was able to see that I've been on that system for a long time (almost 17 years), she said that that wouldn't help, and they have no way to stop it (curious, since it's coming from a Compuserve administrative address). Although simple arrogant carelessness may be a convenient description of Compuserve's recent spamming binge, could a feeble attempt to pump up revenues by forcing customers to spend more on connect time be in preparation of the Worldcom/AOL sale? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 13:49:37 -0500 From: david.jensen@teldta.com (David Jensen) Subject: OAN Tries to Keep Up With Integretel PAT- Integretel isn't the only bottomfeeder out there. Last week our local phone bill included a charge of $5.10 for a _local_ collect call. I have no idea why anyone in our company would accept any collect call, but I had our local telco get us the number of OAN and called their customer service number. Well, it cost them some money on their 800 number, but customer service has a completely different meaning to OAN. After five minutes on the phone with their poor customer service wretch, I had learned that the alternate operator service might have been called Americom, but the CSR was mumbling everything, so I really couldn't be sure. I did learn the remarkable facts that (1) this AOS does not have a phone number and (2) there were no supervisory personnel at the call center at 3pm CDT. She assured me that a supervisory person would call back, but since that was four days ago, I've quit holding my breath. After this totally useless phone call, we asked our LEC to bounce the charges back, which they agreed to and I have decided that no one who deals through OAN will get paid until they have been approved as qualified vendors. Now, here is what the FCC can do: 1. All providers must provide a decision-maker's number to call centers and billing organizations. 2. Call centers must provide that number to customers. 3. LECs need not bill for companies that hide behind billing organizations like OAN and Integretel. 4. All collect service providers must clearly announce who they are and what the charges will be: "This is AOS-the ripoff specialists. We have a collect call for anyone from Michael Foobar. If you accept, the charges will be $5.00 for the first three minutes plus $.75 per minute thereafter. To accept, press 2 and state your name. If you do not accept, please hang up now." No one else is allowed to bill you for something that you are not allowed to know the price of, why did the FCC drop the ball on this? ------------------------------ From: J. DeBert Subject: POTS Acronym Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:05:28 -0700 In "Keeping Up With The Times" I suggest a small modification to the acronym "POTS": Currently POTS is known as "Plain Old Telephone Service". But there's also "Plain Old Terminal Service" which, of course, can be represented by the same acronym. Rather than having POTS refer to only one specialised segment of telecom (telephone services) it should refer to generic telecom services such as data and other telecom services as well, hence "Plain Old Telecom Services". Why? Telecom starts with a "T" and it covers every form of remote communications. A POTS terminal, for example, cannot show more than one display-full of information, such as a VT terminal. Likewise, POTS telephone service cannot do more than one thing at a time. POTS is the old-style, single-session, single-user, one-thing-at-a-time kind of service in every area of telecommunication. What do you think? This occurred to me after my experiences trying to use such limited ("Glaucomic"?) services as single-window VT terminals in a work environment as well as telephone services that will not do what I needed to do, such as view several different screens of data simultaneously, which I could do easily with X/Windows -- but _NOT_ with MS Windows -- and as try to contact several different people by phone at the same time. In an environment where you cannot use (read "Prohibited from using") paper to take notes from one screen to compare with other screens of info, it gets exceedingly frustrating, having to call up different displays while trying to remember all the details of all the other screens -- this is from my experiences with Consilium's Worsktream on VAX/VMS -- and trying to keep notes for all the people on the phone as well -- on a dedicated 5E PBX switch -- as well. (example: What takes 1-2 hours with POTS terminals takes me 10-30 minutes with X/Windows, even with paper for notes.) Quick personal opinion: In a job where one is expected to do several things at once, and quickly, POTS wastes a lot of time and money! Let's get out of the single-screen, single user, per use Legacy mentality. jd ("opinionated, aint he?") jdebert@hypatia.com Don't read Spam! EAT IT! ------------------------------ From: Telic Subject: Communications Technology Magazines Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 02:20:25 GMT Organization: NETCOM Canada Some titles have been added to this list of free publications... # Data Communications: Global Enterprise Networking. # Communication News: Solutions for Today's Networking Decision Makers. # Wireless Telecom. # Satellite Communications: International Satellite Business Journal. # Sound & Communications: The Magazine for Contractors and Consultants. # Computer & Communications OEM: Opportunities, Technology, Strategies. # Portable Design and Communications: Strategies, Technologies, and Products for Mobile Computing. # Access Control & Security Systems Integration. # NetworkWorld: Networking Strategies for the Enterprise. # LAN Times: The Newsmagazine of Enterprise Distributed Computing. # InfoWorld Canada: End-User Solutions for Business. # Computing Canada: The Newspaper for IT Management. # ComputerWorld: The Voice of the I.S. Community. # BackOffice Magazine: The Independent Guide to Windows NT Computing. # VAR Business: Products, Technology & Business for Solution Selling. # Canadian Computer Wholesaler: The Monthly for Resellers. # CIO Canada: Insights for Information Executives. # TeleProfessional: The Forum For Call Center Information. # Vision Systems Design: Imaging & Vision Technologies for Engineers and Integrators. # Laser Focus World: Optics, Electro-optics, and Optoelectronics. # Security Technology & Design. # Control Engineering: Control, Instrumentation & Automation Systems. # Buildings: Facilities Construction and Management. # Systems Contractor News: The Newsmagazine for the Sound, Video, and Electronic Systems Business. # Design News: America's Best-Read Design Engineering Magazine. # Design Product News (DPN). # EE Product News: Product News for Prototype Design. # Computer Design: Information, Intelligence, and Insight for Electronic Design Decision Makers. # EDN: The Design Magazine of the Electronics Industry. # Electronic Products and Technology (ep&t). # Canadian Electronics: News and Products Journal. # Electronic Engineering (EE) Times. # Military & Aerospace Electronics. # Microwave Journal. # Test & Measurement World: The Magazine for Quality in Electronics. # Evaluation Engineering: Electronic Evaluation and Test. # Compliance Engineering: For International Regulatory Compliance. # Integrated System Design: Incorporating IC & EDA Technologies. # Solid State Technology. # Real-Time Engineering: For 32- & 64-bit Real-Time Software Developers. # RTC: For the Embedded and Real-Time Open Systems Computer Industry. # Security Distributing & Marketing (SDM). # Security Sales: Management Resource for the Professional. The only requirement for receiving any or all of these periodicals is for you to send a qualified application form to the publisher(s). You receive the publications, never paying a subscription fee -- even for subsequent renewals. For copies of all Free Subscription Application Forms, for the above 40+ publications, send your clearly printed name and address with $5 USA funds, cheque or money order (NOT CASH) to... TELIC 37 Fuller Avenue, 2nd Floor, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6R 2C4 ** Sorry, no PO's, Credit Cards, or C.O.D. ** Please allow up to 4..6 weeks postal delivery ------------------------------ From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Payphone Prices Going Up Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 03:11:32 GMT Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com On Sat, 11 Oct 1997 01:47:45 -0700, in comp.dcom.telecom Linc Madison wrote: > "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. *Already*?! Was this a LEC payphone, or a COCOT? Around here (Atlanta), I checked about five payphones over the past two days, and all were still charging 25c/call. Granted, Atlanta's local calling areas, rates, etc., are somewhat different than California's, but still ... > 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 There are isolated cases where a local call can be intERstate (Chattanooga, Memphis, etc.), but traditionally these have been handled by agreements between the PSCs/PUCs of the states in question (TN/GA for Chattanooga, etc.) I still agree that local payphone rates are a local matter, just like local residence/business line rates are, and deserve handling by the STATES, withOUT FCC interference. One concern I have (and one the COCOT authorities at the GA PSC also share) is that it will be much harder to police the uniform application of local call rates at COCOTs, such as the ones that treat numbers in NPA 706 local to Atlanta as "toll". Now, a COCOT owner could, say, charge 25c for calls inside 404/770, and charge 35c/min to Jasper 706-692, and *supposedly* the PSC could do nothing about it -- even though Jasper is as local as Marietta or Newnan, according to the GPSC's edicts. (Argument: "Market rate" ... "If Jasper can pull in 35c/min, let's charge it.") This seems like it may lead to rate abuse in California, Chicago, and other "zone rate" states/areas, or local calling areas that straddle NPAs, such as Atlanta and Chattanooga (where I've seen the same damn thing, with certain local NXXs being charged as toll.) Hopefully the FCC will understand that in flat-rate calling areas, such as Atlanta, all *local* calls must be charged the same, regardless of distance, and will allow the GPSC and other regulators to fine/turn off COCOTs that "overcharge" on specific local calls, such as the 706-local areas. For zone/band rates, the application of rates must still be uniform -- calls to point A in band C should be charged the same as calls to point B in band C, even if they are in different NPAs, etc. > And today we see the FCC continuing with its ridiculous rules on > reimbursement to payphone owners for calls to toll-free numbers. COCOT owners do not deserve windfalls, particularly when they have been at best ignorant and at worst scummy scam artists, over the years. > First of all, the per-call charge is ridiculously high, even at $0.28, Even 28c/call won't guarantee that COCOTs will allow 888/877/etc... (some in Atlanta STILL DO NOT ALLOW 888 AS FREE, AND CHARGE AS MUCH AS $3/CALL, IN CLEAR *DEFIANCE* OF GPSC AND FCC ORDERS!) > 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 At the very least, there should be reduced rates for paging carriers. Requiring calls to pager numbers to carry the same charges as to other numbers is messy and could result in substantial increases in pager charges, or paging carriers blocking 800 access from payphones. One solution suggested has been to implement a "caller-pays-from-payphone" 8xx NPA; that defeats the purpose of 8xx NPAs, to allow calls withOUT coins or additional payment to the caller. > 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?? Absolutely NONE. The COCOT, and associated inmate-calling and AOS, industries are among the sleaziest, worst-telecom-educated parts of the telecom industry. Payphone "deregulation", IMO, amounts to a license to abuse the public, even more so than it already has. It cannot be allowed to happen. Stanley Cline somewhere near Atlanta, GA, USA roamer1(at)pobox.com http://scline.home.mindspring.com/ spam not wanted here! help outlaw spam - see http://www.cauce.org/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 00:49:35 -0400 From: blw1540@aol.com (Bruce Wilson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Payphone Prices Going Up In article , Telecom@Eureka.vip. best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) writes: > 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. For many years the toll separations process (revenue sharing) between the LECs and AT&T recognized that local exchange plant was both that and an integral part of the long-distance network; and the Federal government's long taken the position that anything which affects or is affected by interstate commerce is fully within its jurisdiction. (FWIW, I agree with you that the Feds should keep their noses out of any aspect of setting local rates, including the cost of making local calls from pay phones.) Bruce Wilson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #283 ******************************