Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA18551; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 21:19:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 21:19:04 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710290219.VAA18551@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #295 TELECOM Digest Tue, 28 Oct 97 21:19:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 295 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Ringdowns and Other Non-Dialable Toll-Points (Mark J. Cuccia) Telecommunications Manager (TCM) Definition (Robert J. Perillo) Addendum: Psychic Spammer (of June, 97) (Michael Maxfield) Routing in the Northwest (206/425/253) (Michael Gutteridge) House Panel Questions FBI Implementation of Wiretap Law (Monty Solomon) Re: Bell Canada Set to Announce New Area Codes (smasher@idirect.com) Re: Bell Canada Set to Announce New Area Codes (Chris Farrar) Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic (Jay R. Ashworth) 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: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 17:48:35 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Ringdowns and Other Non-Dialable Toll-Points John David Galt wrote: > Quoth Mark J. Cuccia : >> Similarly, there are still numerous remote/rural areas (hunting/fishing >> lodges, ranches, isolated villages, ranger stations, etc) all over the >> NANP area (US, Canada, much of the Caribbean) which can only be >> reached by operators of the telcos/carriers mentioned in the first >> paragraph. If you are trying to reach such a 'ring-down' point in your >> LATA (or when calling from within Canada), you call your 'traditional' >> LEC local/toll opearator with a single '0'. If the 'ringdown' location >> is outside of your LATA when calling from the US, you can only use >> the AT&T operator, (10[10]288)-0('#'/0); or use 800-CALL-ATT / >> 800-3210-ATT and then cut-thru to the operator. Such calls to >> 'ringdown' points are billed at AT&T/LEC Operator _HANDLED_ rates! > Here's something I've wondered about for awhile: why not allow > customers to dial these points themselves (using the 88x pseudo-NPAs)? > (This would ring the same manual operator point it does now, but would > bypass the earlier operator step used now. Billing would work as if > it's an automatic exchange.) Is there some technical reason this > can't be done, or is it the way it is because the union wants to > preserve needless jobs? > [TELECOM Editor's Note: You may be correct about the union. One case > I remember from several years ago involved a little town in northern > Minnesota. The name Grand Portage comes to mind. It was listed as an > operator handled call, with the operator to dial 218 plus 446(?) plus > four-D. In other words, the operator could dial the number but the > public presumably could not. As an experiment I tried dialing direct > 218-446-number and got through just fine. PAT] There are some of these locations which _do_ have _non-published_ 'standard' 7/10-digit NANP numbers of the geographic NPA and the 'closest' (although it could be _miles/kilometers_ away) NXX central-office code and switch. This is the number that the operator would actually dial, but bill the call at _operator-handled_ rates. Due to the distances involved from the serving central office and/or terrain involved in providing the loop to the switch, telco might have been able to have such locations tariffed as such. The customer with the 'non-customer-dialable' service also doesn't know their non-published number, and their phones might even be designed to always reach the local telco operator to place outgoing calls (instead of a dialtone), billed at operator handled rates. I don't know how many areas still have the following type of "loop band/distance" monthly charges (I think that some remote parts of Yukon or NWT have such), but I remember seeing something like this in the Louisiana tariffs some years back. Even though the central office provided dial service, if a customer lived more than so many miles away from their serving central office, they were tariffed in the 'outer' band, and paid a higher monthly charge than those who lived within the 'limit'. This was quite common in rural areas, where a c/o switch served large sprawling geographic territory, and loops were long, and frequently crossed difficult terrain. So, telco feels that they should be able to keep some remote areas reachable only by the operator at higher rates, since the traffic volume to/from such locations is considered low, and the higher rates help keep the monthly costs to the customer with such service within 'reasonable' levels, so that they can have _some_ form of connection with the 'outside world' in case of an emergency. Many non-dialable points might still be just that - not even operator 'dialable'. The far-end operator might have to actually 'manually-ring' the desired customer. Loops might still be open-wire, ground-return, or radio channel. Some of these ringdown or non-dialable locations might even really be a 'two-way radio patch' type of service. As for customers _dialing_ the 88x pseudo-NPA's ... these 88x codes are strictly used for billing and rating purposes. For such locations which can actually be dialed by the operator using a non-pub number, remember that the non-pub number is a 'regular' _geographic_ NPA-NXX-xxxx number. But for billing and rating identification purposes, the 88X-XXX code has its own V&H co-ordinates, pointing to the particular location. Even if customers could dial the 88X, some of these non-customer-dialable locations have their next three digits (after the 88X) as 0XX or 1XX, not just NXX. The billing/rating number could be something like 889-002-1234. Most switches aren't able to handle a customer dialing a 0XX or 1XX code in the central-office-code portion of a ten-digit NANP number. When the toll-free 800 special area code was in danger of exhausting its number supply a few years back prior to introducing 888, there were some proposals to introduce "c/o" codes of the form 0XX and 1XX within toll-free 800, since dialing to 800 (and 888, 900, 500, 700, etc) numbers _always_ requires the _full_ ten-digits. There are also no RAO/CIID type calling cards which begin 800-0XX or 800-1XX, so there would not have been any other numbering conflict. And special 800 routings don't use Kp+800+0XX/1XX+(etc)+St, neither. But it was determined that some switches in use in the NANP wouldn't have been able to be easily adapted to allow customers to dial a '0' or '1' in the 'D-digit-position'. It was also determined that some people might mis-dial by leaving off the required 800 or 1-800. There would be too many misdials - many reaching an operator, or causing some other strange routing/translation due to the misdial. As for the 88x-Xxx codes to identify ringdowns or non-customer-dialable ratecenters, _THAT_ has been an issue tossed around by the industry forums. The billing-related forums wants NANPA to continue to have 88X grandfathered in as 'psuedo' NPAs for billing purposes _only_. However, the numbering-related forums have decided that dialable numbering resources are _not_ to be used for non-dialable or billing-only purposes. It _might_ be possible that the 88x-Xxx billing codes are going to be changed over to 08x-Xxx or 18x-Xxx. However, this might cause a problem, too, since RAO codes are still of the format 0XX through 5XX. But RAO codes might be considered an anachronism in today's telephone environment, except for calling-card numbers based on the RAO code. (But for that matter, non-dialable points themseleves are an anachronism!) Similarly, it has been proposed that NANP billing identification for calling to Mexico be changed from 52X to 05X. (521 through 529, since Mexico's city-codes only begin with '1' through '9', and not '0'; 520 is a valid geographic NPA for most of Arizona, anyhow). Mexico is _NOT_ part of the NANP, and probably won't be ... Mexico's own internal numbering is supposed to be expanding from eight to ten significant digits sometime next year, anyhow. But it _is_ always amazing that old, obsolete, and forgotten services still are in existance to some extent, or that old practices still apply today even if the service has been completely discontinued. 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- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Does anyone around here remember the radio operator based in Alma, Quebec who handled all the traffic around the far northern fringes of that province until at least some time in the 1970's? A couple hundred miles north of Quebec City on provincial high- way 169, her duties were to maintain communication with such northern outposts as Inukjuak, Salvit and Deception, Quebec. If your long distance operator checked with Rate and Route for Inukjuak for example, the routing was given as 'International Operator 419' and when dialing into that, the responding operator announced herself as 'Montreal Toll Center'. When your operator then asked for Inukjuak the Montreal operator (who had initially responded speaking French but had switched to English when she detirmined it was a call from the USA) would say that she would make a connection to 'Alma Radio' who would assist further. The Alma operator would answer in French and likewise switch to English with a *very* French accent. She always seemed to be quite amazed that someone from Chicago was calling. "Just a minute," she would say, "I will see if I can raise them." She would then key her microphone and repeat several times with a pause of a few seconds after each call, "Alma is calling Inukjuak on Channel 1". During her pause you would hear a great deal of static. After a minute or so of no response she would switch to Channel 2 and repeat her call several times. She would alternate her calls in English and French. After a couple minutes of this calling, alternating between channels in English and French with much static and hissing on the line as she waited for an answer she would finally say to the Chicago operator, "Oh, madamoiselle, I am so sorry but Inukjuack is not responding. They only promised us they would listen to the radio between 11 AM and Noon each day, and sometimes I talk to them about seven in the evening also. Shall I try for you later and call you when they respond?" The Chicago operators were amazed that such a system existed. I asked Alma the distance being covered and the type of radio communication. She said it was AM (amplitude modulation) single sideband, and she ventured a guess that the point we were calling was 'several hundred miles north'. The other main radio station covering northern Quebec was located a bit to the west in the town of Val D'or, which operated in essentially the same way. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Oct 97 13:44 EST From: Perillo@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL (Robert J. Perillo) Subject: Telecommunications Manager (TCM) Definition I have been told that the new edition, 13th, of Harry Newton's, "Newton's Telecom Dictionary", the standard telecommunications dictionary/glossary will be available in bookstores this November. One problem that I have found with the current dictionary is that it is missing an acronym listing or definition for the common term 'TCM'. This is strange, because Newton's publications are aimed at the TCM, and his people constantly use that acronym? Attached is a definition, in mini-essay form as is common for the dictionary. ------------------ Telecommunications Manager (TCM) The TCM is the manager or the manager of the department that Plans, Controls, and Administers the telephony and telecommunications assets of the company. And ensures that the telephone and telecommunications systems are well-run and functioning smoothly. These assets may include the PBX, ISDN, T-1's, local and long distance telephone lines, telephone sets, authorization codes, cable pairs, WAN's, Fax machines, voice mail systems, automated attendants, interactive voice response systems, automatic call distribution, multiplexors, modem pools, etc. . The internal data facilities such as LAN's and routers may be under the administration of the TCM, or could be the responsibility of the Management Information Systems (MIS) department. But since the TCM has responsibility for both the inside wiring and the outside Carrier facilities, close coordination would be required if the internal data facilities are controlled by the MIS department. TCM Functions Before the Bell System divestiture, pre-1984, there were no choices and one stop shopping for telephone and telecommunications services. The telecommunications management was simple then, and in most cases relegated to the accounting or administration departments. With the advent of Other Common Carriers (OCC's) and Competitive Access Providers (CAP's), competition, and choices to save business money on their telephone and telecommunications costs, came management and administration responsibilities that require special skills and full time administration. In addition, corporate demands for a more flexible phone system requires the TCM to have knowledge of product interoperability, new protocols, data networking, and computer telephony standards. The following are the functions of the TCM; + Operating, administering, monitoring, and maintaining the existing telecommunications systems. + Dealing with the various vendors and providers, including verifying and paying the bills. + Preparing and managing the Telecommunications budget. + Keeping abreast of changes in technology, services, industry structure, and rates. + Assisting company management in developing a corporate telecommunications policy that meets business objectives. + Developing and implementing company telephone and telecommunications procedures for efficient and cost effective use, and training company employees in these procedures. + Upgrading, procurement, selecting, contracting, or purchasing a system, new system, equipment, or services. + Planning and analyzing for growth, new requirements, or future functionality. . The goal of the TCM is to provide good telecommunications services for an organization and its employees at the lowest possible cost. Robert J. Perillo, CCP, CNE Perillo@dockmaster.ncsc.mil Principal Telecommunications Engineer Richmond, VA ------------------------------ From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael Maxfield) Subject: Addendum: Psychic Spammer (of June, 97) Organization: Our Lady of Perpetual Freedom Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 23:23:20 GMT Anyone else scammed by this slime? Better late than never, but today I was going over the last three bills I have for one of my phone lines, and found a recuring charge for $46.30 billed by the long distance company USP&C. ($44.95 plus $1.35 taxes) The bill was itemized something like: ====================================== Sept 28, 1997 USP&C Total Current Charges $46.30 TAX Fed: 1.35 $1.35 CALLS - Billed on Behalf of ASP TELECOM, INC - Domestic Aug24 Call Plus 44.95 Total Calls 44.95 ====================================== The above appeared on my July, Aug, and Sept bill. "Whoops!" I remarked, for not having looked at my bills more closely sooner, especially when I was expecting some funny business from the Psychic Spammer. I called USPC and inquired about the charges (also found out that there was a fourth which I should be seeing on my next telco bill, being processed today) and was told that it was service which I had subscribed to. I asked the nice lady for the name who authorized the acceptance of this service, but she was unable to tell me because she was with USPC and not ASP TELECOM. She did however suggest that "someone" had subscribed to it by calling an 800 number from my phone. I proceded to tell here about certain FCC rules governing charges for calling 800 numbers, and the requirement for a proper agreement prior to any such billing, and I am very sure that no such agreement took place. I asked that my account be credited, and she did credit it for $179.80. (I also talked to PacBell, and told them that I will not pay for $185.20 which included the taxes. PacBell agreed that I was correct.) I also asked her for the name and address of the slime charging me. This is what I got in response: ASP Telecom, Inc 3420 Pump Road. Suite 260 Richmond, VA 23233 Since I'm not at home, where I have notes tacked to the wall regarding the one call I made to any questionable 800 number, to "sample" their wares for free, I had to use DeJaNews to gather up a secondary source of info on this call I made, which I feel is responsible for this billing. [the following slightly obscured to avoid any accidental spam filters] ========The BAIT==================== ] ] Subject: ! FRXE PSXCHIC READINGS! FRXE!! X-XXX-XXX-8048 ] From: lov @ interport. net ] Date: 1997/06/18 ] Message-ID: <5o81js$9dt$232@broadway.interport.net> ] Organization: Interport Communications Corp. ] Newsgroups: alt.beer ] ] Hear a gifted psychic speak your fortune and future ] on 1-XXX-677-XXXX our special samples line where you ] can try a psychic reading free. Don't take the word ] of others - see for yourself just how accurate they are. ] Adults over 18 only. ] ] Dial 1-800-XXX-XXXX ] =============================================================== And my posting on June 25, about my call on June 25, one day AFTER the "Jun24 CALL PLUS 44.95" billing on my Jul 28 bill. (Gee, they really must be psychic.) =============================================================== ] Subject: Re: I called the Psychic Spammer (from a payphone...) ] From: tweek@netcom.com-NO.SPAM- (Reverend Tweek) ] Date: 1997/06/25 ] Message-ID: ] Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet ] ] Reverend Tweek wrote: ] >Jeffrey (Prime) Smith wrote: ] >>Today I invested some of my lunch hour and called two of the 800 ] >>numbers (XXX-8048 and XXX-3733) the Psychic spammer is using from the ] >>payphone outside work. ] > ] >FCC strikes me as one place, since they ruled within the last 18 months ] >that you cannot bill for a call to an 800 number without prior agreement ] >with the caller... ] ] Well, after posting the last, and reading as the FCC wrote it, I felt ] I was safe to call from my home phone in order to sample their wares. ] ] [I have the data relevant to when I made the call, written down should ] I require it in a dispute.] ] ] June 25, 1997, 8:10 PM PDT called (1-XXX) XXX 8048 ] The intro first "blurted" "$1.50 a billed monthly" and ] then went on to mention that this was a free sample call. It then ] asked for a name... and said "If your name is Keith Adright, say ] Keith Aldright"... since this was just a sampling, I said "Keith ] Aldright". It then gave me a personal number, which looks similar ] to an 800 number, and a personal code, a four digit PIN looking ] number... and even my own "Personal Delivery Code" so that all those ] rad chics could leave me messages. ] ] It then went into a Psycho spiel... telling me how I we all are spirits ] stuck in our bodies... bla bla bla... finally, after about five ] minutes, It gave me a Main Menu from which I could make selections... ] At that point, after the only key I would dare press was the "*" key, ] it hung up on me after a while. I suspect that any additional calls to ] that number from my phone, or the "personal number" and my PIN from any ] phone, might see an attempt at being billed by them... ] ] HOWEVER, and unfortunately, this scam appears perfectly legal and it ] does not strike me that they are forwarding the calls to an international ] number... but I'd bet they are logging every call, and will try to ] claim that any second call from any particular number is an agreed upon ] call. tweek@netcom.com tweek@io.com | "Well, you and I would differ on DoD #MCMLX tweek@ccnet.com | what's ignorance and educated." sigtst@tweekco.ness.com | - Senator Ernest Hollings ------------------------------ From: Michael Gutteridge Subject: Routing in the Northwest (206/425/253) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:24:39 -0800 Organization: ONYX Software Corp. Reply-To: mikeg@spam.onyx.com Hiya! We're undergoing a split of the 206 area code into three areas: 206 (Seattle), 425 (Eastside and north end), and 253 (South King County). There is an additional layer of complexity in that they are implementing ten and eleven digit dialing, where some exchanges accross areacodes are dialable using solely ten digits, and some exchanges within the areacode require the full eleven digits. They way I understand it, this is because some calls are inter-carrier (ie, a call from USWest territory into GTE requires the eleven digits). Ok, that's assumption number one. Is that correct? Now, given that, is there some reference table where I can look up the NPA/NXX combination and thereby determine what dialing scheme I need to use? I've looked at the offerings from the TRA. I suspect the data is buried somewhere in the LERG and/or NIPC. I don't have enough knowledge to extract it, and the class on interpreting the LERG isn't offered until the day after the dialing plan goes mandatory! In the LERG, I have a column called "EO" for the digits the end-office requires to terminate the call. I don't think this is any help. I suppose I could base it off of the OCN number (ie, if the end OCN isn't the same as the originating OCN). This is confused by the fact that there are several operating companies, but it's the underlying carrier that really determines the dialing scheme (eg, our service is from TCG, which is actually running on USWest service). I'm puzzled by the AT field. What is an "Access Tandem"? Could this be my holy grail? ;-) If anyone can suggest a book that describes this process, I'd be more than happy to buy it. Is this information part of the LERG subscription? I don't want to take a lot of anyone's time, but we're going to have a huge problem with some of our software once this takes effect. Thanks, Michael Gutteridge System Administrator ONYX Software Corp. mikeg@spam.onyx.com 425.519.4118 www.onyx.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 13:08:05 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: House Panel Questions FBI Implementation of Wiretap Law Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Excerpt from ACLU News 10-26-97 House Panel Questions FBI Implementation of Wiretap Law FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Thursday, October 23, 1997 WASHINGTON -- Amid growing concerns about privacy implications and costs, a House subcommittee today questioned FBI implementation of a controversial 1994 law that forced telephone companies help law enforcement agencies gain access to digital phone lines for surveillance operations. During the four-hour hearing before the Crime Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, two Republicans -- Bob Barr of Georgia and Steve Chabot of Ohio -- were harshly critical of the 1994 law, has implemented it, saying it represents an enormous invasion of privacy and could lead to a system of ongoing government surveillance. Seconding those criticisms, the American Civil Liberties Union said that safeguards originally implemented in the legislation have failed to protect the American public. "The hearing today clearly revealed that the FBI is embarked on a scheme to undermine the privacy of every law-abiding American," said Donald Haines, a Legislative Counsel with the ACLU's Washington National Office. "From the very beginning, the FBI has flagrantly violated both the process and the requirements set out in the legislation," Haines added. "The FBI has repeatedly sought to coerce the telecommunications industry into changing its technology so that law enforcement agencies could increase their wiretapping." The 1994 telecommunications act is far from the only effort by the FBI to gain backdoor access to private communications. In another ongoing Congressional debate, the FBI is trying to impose restrictions on the use of privacy-protecting encryption technology. "Congress must squarely confront this persistent pattern of FBI and law enforcement intrusions into our privacy," Haines said. "Congress should act immediately to repeal the 1994 law, or, at an absolute minimum, refuse to fund any implementation activities." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 13:06:25 -0500 From: Alykhan Subject: Re: Bell Canada Set to Announce New Area Codes Linc Madison wrote: > In article , Jeff Smith > wrote: >> Bell Canada is set to annouce 4 new area codes for the GTA. (New >> Metro Toronto). >> 1. Durham Region - will move to a new area code >> 2. Peel & Halton - will move to a new area code >> (these regions will share area code until split is needed) >> 3. York - will retain the current 905 area code >> - the rest of 905 not in the GTA will move to a new area code. >> 4. (new) Toronto - will either get an overlay or a split of >> the current area code or maybe wireless services to move to a >> seperate area code. >> By 2002 the GTA - will be called Metro will compose of Five Cities. >> Namely: 1. City of Toronto >> 2. City of Durham >> 3. City of Peel >> 4. City of York >> 5. City of Halton >> People are saying Bell has applied for more area codes to get the >> regions ready now! > This is almost certainly incorrect. First of all, there is no "City > of Durham" in Toronto. Durham, Ontario, is a town north of Kitchener, > in the 519 area code. "Metro Toronto" consists of the City of Toronto, > York, East York, North York, Etobicoke, and Scarborough. Those six > cities currently share area code 416. The same six cities are being > proposed for merger into "Megacity Toronto." If you read "York" refers to York Region, that will be merged into City of York. The current city of York will be part of new Toronto Jan 1, 1998 "Durham" refers to Durham Region (which inc. Pickering etc.) Read the top of this message Linc. The New GTA consists of 5 (FIVE) regions namley 1. Halton Region 2. Peel Region 3. Peel Region 4. Durham Region 5. (new) Toronto > More importantly, York is not currently in 905, so it is absolutely > NOT going to be moved into 905 to the exclusion of all current 905 > communities. No way, no how. York is currently in 416. York region is in the 905 area code. The city of York is being merged with the city of Toronto. > Lastly, there is no way that Bell Canada could possibly get NANPA > approval for four new area codes at once for the Toronto region, > especially if you are talking (as you appear to be) only about the > area that is currently in 416. This is about the 905 region not 416!!! > Relief proposals for 416 have focused along two principal > alternatives: > (A) geographic split, probably along Yonge Street > (B) all-services overlay of 416 I have been told that the split will be as follows. It will NOT follow Yonge Street. The current (old) City of Toronto, City of York, and Borough of East York will remain in the current 416 area code. Etobicoke, North York, and Scarborough will move to the new area code. This is an attempt to keep the city core in the same area. and create an inner/outer area code similar to London, UK's 171, and 181 area code. ------------------------------ From: Chris Farrar Subject: Re: Bell Canada Set to Announce New Area Codes Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 15:51:11 -0500 Organization: Sympatico Reply-To: cfarrar@sympatico.ca Linc Madison wrote: > More importantly, York is not currently in 905, so it is absolutely > NOT going to be moved into 905 to the exclusion of all current 905 > communities. No way, no how. York is currently in 416. This depends on what he is calling "York". If he means the current City of York, soon to be swallowed into the Megacity of Toronto, you are correct. If he is talking about "York Region" which is patroled by York Regional Police, which is essentially Markham, Richmond Hill, Vaughn (sp?), Woodbridge, ie, the rest of York County outside of Toronto, which currently is in the 905 area, he may be correct. Chris Farrar | cfarrar@sympatico.ca | Amateur Radio, a VE3CFX | fax +1-905-457-8236 | national resource PGPkey Fingerprint = 3B 64 28 7A 8C F8 4E 71 AE E8 85 31 35 B9 44 B2 ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic Date: 28 Oct 1997 20:20:12 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates On Mon, 27 Oct 97 16:17 EST, Robert J. Perillo wrote: > "In a letter to all customers of its wire-maintenance plans, > Bell Atlantic said the plans will no longer cover > ''malfunctions in the dial tone resulting from the use of > voice-grade lines to transmit or receive data or signals which > exceed the operating capabilities of the line.'' In effect, > the Bell Atlantic policy means subscribers to the optional > wire-maintenance plans will not be covered for service calls > that involve problems resulting from modem use on a standard > voice line. Of the 21 million access lines in Bell Atlantic's > territory, 13.2 million are residential. The company would not > disclose how many customers use its wire-maintenance plan. > According to Bell Atlantic, ''a service charge may apply when a > repair person is dispatched and the problem is with the > transmission or receipt of data or signals which are beyond the > operating capabilities of the dial-tone line.'' ". > "Bell Atlantic instituted the new policy because its support staff > can rarely solve problems on its voice-grade lines > that slow down or disrupt data transmissions, said John White, > executive director of outside plant technology and standards > at Bell Atlantic. > The problems are especially acute with 28.8-Kbps modems, which > ''use more bandwidth than we've designed the network > to provide,'' White said. Users of 28.8-Kbps modems typically > do not get 28.8-Kbps performance because of the limitations > of Bell Atlantic's voice-grade circuits, he said. Standard > voice lines operate at 300 to 3,000 hertz, but a 28.8 modem > requires a range of 465 to 3,520 hertz, he said." No. By definition, consumer dialup modems are designed to fit into service parameters _defined by the phone companies_. The modem makers didn't pick the numbers, the telco's did. Do we all have that? Telco's have tried this before, and in the process, proven that they do in fact have no clue about data: does anyone remember the RBOC which announced that it would support data service on voice lines only up to "9600 baud". Inasmuch as no consumer-grade modem on the market currently goes faster than about 3400 baud, I guess we're all set. I'd strongly recommend that consumers in Hell Titannic's service area melt down the phones of the Public Service Commission -- _and_ the Attorneys General -- this is _fraud_. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #295 ******************************