Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA06378; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:33:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:33:33 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711190133.UAA06378@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #319 TELECOM Digest Tue, 18 Nov 97 20:33:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 319 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson TWX/Telex, Realtime vs Store/Forward (Mark J. Cuccia) OLS (Originating Line Screening) via PRI (Q.931 Message) (Robert Gutierrez) AT&T Hike Dims Deregulation Promises (Monty Solomon) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Garrett Wollman) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (joeav@callnet.com) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Dave Stott) Re: Blocking/Charging for 800/888 (was Phase-Out of 10XXX) (Stanley Cline) The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: 10XXX/101XXX Codes In Canada? (Tony Harminc) Re: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? (Alan Boritz) 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: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 16:06:27 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: TWX/Telex, Realtime vs Store/Forward In "Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System", Craig Milo Rogers wrote: > Lee Winson wrote: >> IMHO, the Internet can be described in terms of "store and forward", >> not direct connect. That is, your message is stored by your ISP, >> then packaged and routed. This can appear to be instantaneous, or as >> Dave Barry said, at the speed of the Division of Motor Vehicles. >> That won't work in voice communication. > The term "store-and-forward" carries baggage. The Internet's > predecessor, the ARPANet, was described as "packet-switched" to > differentiate it from earlier store-and-forward text messaging systems > (uh, TWX?). The discriminating factors are: the ARPANet forwarded ^^^ > parts of messages (packets) instead of entire user-level messages, it > forwarded them faster, and it didn't store copies in the intermediary > switching nodes for an appreciable time. TWX and Telex were actually _realtime_ _circuit-switched_ _terminal-to- terminal_ services. Within the _worldwide_ telex network (after all countries were fully connected with each other for circuit-switched connections), you dialed another Telex machine from your own Telex machine, and you had a live realtime connection, and could even do 'chats' back and forth by text-typing. However, on most international Telex connections (as compared to those connections within your Telex carrier's network), you first needed to 'dialup' (or in some cases, 'type') the Telex number of an IRC (International Record Carrier), such as RCA, ITT, WUI/MCI, TRT, etc. That IRC's switch answered and auto-responded with a typed answerback. You then _typed_ (not dialed) the international Telex country-code of the country you wanted to communicate with, followed by the domestic number of your desired Telex party. The above on Overseas/International Telex similar to 'dialing-up' a telephone call via a long-distance carrier's access numbers under fg.A (POTS/local numbers), fg.B (950-xxxx), or 800/888/etc. type numbers. The access number can be touchtone-entered or even rotary/pulse-dialed, but when the long-distance or calling-card service 'answers' with its 'dialtone', voice-prompts, or musical-jingles, you then must enter the desired number by DTMF/touchtone. Even using online, information, or bulletin-board services 'dialup' service is similar in that you dial a 'regular' telephone number (standard DTMF or pulse), but then you switch to data/modem mode for the actual data communiation. Within the old Bell System TWX network in the US/Canada, you also had realtime circuit-switched connections, TTY-to-TTY, with full two-way communication. However, just as with Telex, both ends really shouldn't be _simultaneously_ typing. During the actual dialed-up connection, one should send a brief message in realtime, wait a moment, and then see if the other end responds. When a TWX customer needed to call a Telex subscriber in another country, similar to Telex, they first needed to dialup a 'TWX' number of an IRC's Telex gateway switch, NPA-NNX-XXXX or N10-NNX-XXXX. Some of these numbers were designed to be "TWX toll-free" to the originating TWX customer. And when the IRC's gateway answered and responded in text with its answerback, the TWX customer then 'typed' the necessary instructions, such as the number of the desired Telex number in the foreign country. In the 1960's (when AT&T still completely owned and operated the TWX network in the US), there was _NO_ 'direct' interfacing between AT&T's TWX network and Western Union's (WUTCO) Telex network. However, in the mid-1960's, WUTCO did introduce a service where a WUTCO Telex subscriber could send a message to AT&T TWX subscribers, in a NON 'high-tech' way. The Telex customer would place a 'telex' call to a WUTCO center, type their message (or transmit their pre-punched papertape message), along with the headers that the message is intended for a TWX. WUTCO personnel would be receiving the 5-level Baudot punched papertape on their end, and at the conclusion of the message, the WUTCO attendant would tear off the papertape, place it in the tape-feeder of a (leased) Bell System 3-Row TWX machine, and dial-out over telco's TWX network to the actual desired customer, and then send the punched papertape message. WUTCO's own Telex network in the US (and I would assume the Telex networks in other countries, along with the IRC services for country-to-country) also began to introduce an _electronic_ store-and-forward 'one-way' service, in the mid-1960's. This electronic stor-and-forward was for Telex-to-Telex connections. The rates for such 'delayed' one-way messages were probably less expensive than for realtime TTY-to-TTY connections. When WUTCO took over the 'marketing' of (US) TWX from AT&T circa 1970/71 (AT&T/Bell still continued to maintain the routing and switching of US TWX until circa 1981/82, when US TWX switching was finally taken over by WUTCO; _all_ Canadian TWX operations _always_ remained the domain of the Canadian telephone companies rather than CNCP Telex), WUTCO began to introduce the electronic store-and-forward message capabilities to US TWX subscribers, as well as for TWX-to-Telex store-and-forward message and vice-versa. However, realtime two-way TTY-to-TTY connections were still available for TWX-to-TWX and Telex-to-Telex connections, but at different rates. And WUTCO also introduced electronic realtime two-way TTY-to-TTY connections _between_ TWX and Telex subscribers in the 1970's, but for the first several years of realtime TWX-to-Telex or Telex-to-TWX, you had to first place a call to the WUTCO "Infomaster" Center, and then 'type' your desired party's number. Later on in the 1980's (after US TWX switching and routing was fully handled by WUTCO), you could _dial_ special 'access' codes (similar to 10XXX/101XXXX+ telephone carrier codes) followed by the called party's number for realtime 2-way connections between TWX and Telex customers. WUTCO, the IRCs and other countries' (usually PTT-owned) Telex companies also had ways to send telegrams, cablegrams, radiograms, etc. directly from a Telex terminal. This, too, was a store-and-forward 'one-way' transmission on a 'delayed' delivery basis. But 'basic' TWX and Telex, as well as other 'private' TTY networks were mostly circuit-switched realtime terminal-to-terminal connections. Throughout the 1960's, AT&T (and WUTCO) had always wanted to enter into the field of "value-added" data _processing_ services. However, there were various tariff restrictions against such. WECO, Bell Labs and Teletype Corporation (all part of AT&T) did develope technologies for such, many of which was applied to the field of data _communications_, which was something a common-carrier could do under tariff. AT&T's Dataphone service (particularly their wideband/highspeed Dataphone-50) was for _realtime_ data communication over ordinary telephone lines and trunks, but AT&T wanted to begin to offer some store-and-forward data services. The data messages would be electronically stored in enhanced #5XB offices or later ESS offices. However, I don't think that AT&T could get regulatory approval. Even Dataphone-50 (introduced in the later 1960s) only had one customer, "the telephone company itself", until the mid-1970's, when other (non-telco) customers were able to subscribe to this data service's wideband trunks and CPE (modems) from telco. (Since the late 1960's, AT&T and its Bell Telephone Companies had used Dataphone-50 Switeched Digital Service, to exhange collect/card/3d.party-billed revenue and billing information, with each other, exchanging this information each day in the overnight period.) In the early 1980's, some of the local Bell telcos experimented temporarily with central-office switch-based (electronic) voicemail services. But telco had trouble getting regulatory approval when they wanted to make voicemail service a regular permanent offering. Since AT&T/Bell (and WUTCO) had been more-or-less monopolies (and in some ways AT&T and Bell/LEC still are), they were barred from entering into providing these and various other "enhanced", "value-added" and "information processing" services. They were supposed to be regulated only as _common-carriers_ for 'basic' telecommunication services, as well as manufacturing and leasing out the necessary CPE to provide such 'basic' services. Many of these restrictions have since been lifted over the past several years, due to divestiture, and changes in the regulatory climate. Some even claim that AT&T itself _wanted_ divestiture, so it wouldn't have the burdon of the local monopoly (some forms of intercity carrier competition had been around for several years by 1982) nor much of the regulatory restrictions. They could be free to enter new service offerings in a more competitive environment. 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: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:33:43 PST From: Robert M. Gutierrez Subject: OLS (Originating Line Screening) via PRI (Q.931 Message) Has anybody been able to provision a PRI with a LEC, CLEC or IXC that will or can pass OLS digits from their switch? There are usually 2 OLS digits that are usually prefixed on the ANI. So for FGB or FGB inband signalling, you would get 12 digits, the first 2 being the OLS digits, and the other 10 being the ANI of the call. OLS digits can define the type of originating service, like public coin, hotel, hospital, prison (!), and also flag ANI failures and customer provided ANI digits. Yes, we are set up to use this information. Unfortunately, I have not looked at the Q.931 document from the ITU to see if there is a digit length in the called number field. I would assume not for international and future portability (god forbid that I think U.S. centric!). So with that in mind, is there any options in the DMS-100 or 5ESS generic that provide passing of the OLS digits in the Q.931 message. No, I'm not about to order a FGD trunk with a SS-7 link. My CPE can't handle that :( rob gutierrez / WebTV Networks ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T Hike Dims Deregulation Promises Date: Mon, 17 Nov 97 20:23:43 -0500 From: Monty Solomon AT&T hike dims deregulation promises By John Rendleman, PC Week Online 11.17.97 10:00 a.m. ET In a move that spells higher WAN costs for many corporate customers, AT&T Corp. has quietly hiked rates for most of its business voice and data services by as much as 10 percent. AT&T's latest rate increase is particularly troubling for corporate IT managers, since MCI Communications Corp. and Sprint Corp. typically follow rate changes made by market leader AT&T with changes of their own. The AT&T rate increases, which took effect Nov. 5, cover the entire range of AT&T telecommunications offerings, including data services such as frame relay, ATM (asynchronous transfer mode) and private lines, as well as the gamut of its inbound and outbound voice services. With the latest hikes, "there were some services that weren't affected, but the actions we took do have an impact on the majority of our customers," said Steve Sobolevitch, director of strategic pricing for business services at AT&T, in Basking Ridge, N.J. Such a move spells bad news for corporate customers looking to competition in the telecommunications market to bring lower prices for voice and data services. "I certainly hate to see long distance rates and our costs rise," said one AT&T customer who requested anonymity. The double-digit growth in AT&T's overall traffic and the triple-digit growth in frame relay traffic, in particular, led to the company's decision to raise prices, according to Sobolevitch. In any price change, "we look at the growth parameters of each service, and we have strong demand for our services," he said. "That's one of the factors that goes into how we price the service." That explanation angered business customers, even though most said they comprehend the company's decision to price its services at the highest level the market will bear. "I understand it, but I don't like it," said one AT&T customer who requested anonymity. "I have a problem with anybody that prices anything for as much as they think they can get for it." Among the RBOCs (Regional Bell Operating Companies), BellSouth Corp. attacked AT&T's rate action. Officials at the Atlanta-based RBOC have in the past accused the three long distance providers of raising rates together. Whether rate hikes from the other two companies would follow is unclear. Last week, representatives at MCI and Sprint said their companies were still evaluating AT&T's rate increases before deciding whether or how to respond. ------------------------------ From: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: 16 Nov 1997 23:25:06 -0500 Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , Bruce Lucas wrote: > Yeah, that really sounds like my idea of high-quality phone service - > hovering on borderline of acceptability, with a guarantee that some > percentage of the time you pick up the phone get such a poor > connection that you just hang up instead. Yeah. Not at all. If you want guarantees, you can (or rather, will be able to) pay for them. If you're cheap and don't care (or you're rich and have already paid for oceans of bandwidth, mostly unused), there's no need. Think of it as ``unbundling''. Or consider the question from another angle ... say you're in Europe, calling someone who uses a mobile phone. Chances are, the guy at the other end has a crappy 13-kbit/s GSM codec. Why should you pay for a 64-kbit/s A-law path between you and his MTSO when 13 would give you all the voice quality his phone is capable of delivering? (Of course, the telephone company can make this optimization too, provided it has enough information about the endpoints AND a flexible- or old-enough network.) Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same wollman@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick ------------------------------ From: joeav@callnet.com Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 16:27:48 GMT Organization: Futuris/Callnet I fail to undestand how anyone can over look the e-commerce aspect of all this. The local telco's are the only that could provide a secure network that is all ready in place down to the local loop. Sure the cable compaines have a shot it but, the race is on ... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:51:04 -0500 From: Dave Stott Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System In TELECOM Digest #317, lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson)wrote: > Some more comments on economic competition and telephone service ... >> The BOC's loop is one way for consumers and businesses to connect to >> their ISPs, but there are others: wireless and microwave, for >> instance, are in use today. > Is wireless and microwave appropriate and cheap enough for individual > POTS subscribers? Not today, but there is a huge economic incentive for the PCS and WCS auction winners, and the CLECs and ALTs to continue to refine the technology. When new entrants can offer wireless local loops and bypass the LECs' plant, they have succeeded in denying the LEC any share of the customer's local service bill (not including calls to the LEC's customers which will be paid by interconnect fees). Depending on whose side you're on that is bad or that is good, but it surely _is_ and the LEC has lost a revenue source, the new entrant has reduced its reliance on its competitor, and the bulk of the money flows to the actual provider. >> That's certainly one opinion. Others feel that telephone customers >> have had no choice in where their money went prior to today, and the >> dollars they have invested in telephone service (because all dollars >> are ultimately supplied by the customers) is a "public investment" in >> a private company. > Consumers received a service for their payments all this years. > The network was not built by tax dollars, but rather by subscribers > who were getting telephone service. Indeed, the smallest subscribers > were subsidized by the heavier business, premium service, and long > distance users. Yes they were. And while the funds to build the system were not explicitly tax dollars, it could be argued that they were selectively applied implicit tax dollars. The Federal Government decided that the Bell System (and other LECs) would be a monopoly and we had no choice about who received our telephone dollars. The government-protected LEC always got your money. >> When GM came to town, Ford could argue that the existing roads should be >> used exclusively for Fords, since only Fords had been used on them up >> to now. Should GM build all new roads? > Well, your argument falls flat since Ford didn't build the roads in > your story. The Bell System designed and built the network privately. 'Privately' doesn't work here. They were protected by the government and no one was allowed to build a competing network. What's the difference between the Bell System and a government agency? The Bell System actually made money. Remember that _before_ the Bell System, there were competing local companies, and the Feds decided that a 'natural monopoly' was in the country's best interest. The Feds actually nationalized the Bell System for a short time, but that didn't work, so the 'natural monopoly' argument took precedence. Otherwise, we might have had the US Postal & Telephone Department. > Further, the pricing of service was controlled by the government. Yikes! Sounds like the USPS, not a 'private' company. > The phone company is also mandated to serve unprofitable/undesirable > customers. There are often articles in the newspaper complaining > about corporations avoiding poor or ghetto areas, however, that is > generally fully legal. The phone company must offer full services > everywhere, to everyone, with appeal rights to the PUC. And that is > costly. > The phone company isn't allowed to tack on price premiums. For > example, if you visit a resort town, you'll find most prices more > expensive than back at home. Phone service will be exactly the same. > If the phone company was private, it'd charge a premium just as the > ice cream man and suntan lotion store. [I paid double for suntan > lotion this summer at the beach because I forgot the bottle at home.] Sounds again like the Post Office. My point is that the infrastructure was built with captive dollars. Whether they were _tax_ dollars or government directed consumer dollars really isn't the issue. I've paid my money for 20 years to the LEC because I wanted a phone, and the government told me who I could buy that service from. They didn't give me a choice, and my 'investment' for basic service during that time surely paid for the local loop. The stockholders don't pay for it. Just the ratepayers do. > Secondly, better ideas don't always "drive out bad ones". That only > happens in the "pure competition" economic model where everyone has > full knowledge and equal opportunity to enter the marketplace. Once a > company gets entrenched, it won't be go away so easily, even if it > provides _bad service_. You mean like the BOCs or the USPS? The good news is that poorly run new entrants aren't likely to become entrenched. Look at the cellular vs PCS market wars - the cellular companies are rushing to upgrade their networks to compete with the new entrants, now that their government- mandated duopoly is gone. If the new PCS companies don't get it right, they won't survive. Same for the incumbants. > Why re-create something we know from history was a failure? I agree. Let's not perpetuate another USPS. Dave Stott (602) 831-7355 dstott@2help.com http://www.2help.com Helping you profit from changes in the telecommunications industry ------------------------------ From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Blocking/Charging for 800/888 (was Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes?) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 03:53:58 GMT Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com On Wed, 12 Nov 1997 02:24:00 GMT, chip76@ix.netcom.com (Jeff Vinocur) wrote: > high school in a somewhat rural area). I can't recall the carrier, I > am vaguely thinking Universal Telecom or something similar. Anyway, I > was trying to call home (we have an 888 number for such situations), > and it rejected it. I first thought perhaps my dad had restricted the > calling area, so I tried 1-800-CALL-ATT to use the calling card > instead. Same thing. It simply didn't like toll-free calls. I've > never seen this before, has anyone else? Yes. This sounds like a private payphone (COCOT) that was programmed specifically to block access to 800/888 numbers. It's possible that the COCOT owner blocked access to 1-800-CALL-ATT and to all 888 numbers -- I've seen sleazy things like this before. Other COCOTs charge for calls to 888 -- but not 800 -- numbers, thinking that 888 is a toll NPA; others charge for 800-555-xxxx and/or 888-555-xxxx thinking that there is a charge for calling the numbers, as with NPA (other than 800/888)-555-1212. With COCOTs, anything can happen. :( Since you were trying to dial 1-800-CALL-ATT, the COCOT is clearly in violation of state and Federal regulations barring COCOT owners from blocking -- or (in most states) charging for -- calls to 800/888 numbers or 10[1x]xxx carrier codes. You should complain to the Public Service/Utility Commission in the state in which the phone was located, as well as to the FCC. Usually, this will get the phone owner's attention. =20 (Unfortunately, a few COCOT owners, including Peoples Telephone Company of Miami and several small Atlanta companies, are "habitual offenders" -- PTC continues to overcharge on local calls and disallow 101-5xxx/6xxx carrier access codes, and two small companies here in Atlanta block or charge for 888, arguing with me that 888 is not toll-free, even though 888 has been in existence for nearly two years. All this is even after repeated complaints to them and to the FCC, Georgia PSC, and Tennessee regulators. The problem is NOT with the regulators -- Georgia in particular is very good about policing problem payphones -- it's the sleazy COCOT companies themselves.) > I realized after a couple seconds that I could use 10ATT, > which worked -- although their phone tree didn't like me and I ended > up having to recite numbers to an operator. Speaking of phone trees, A note on AT&T tariffs -- Calls placed through 10ATT now cost more than calls placed via 1-800-CALL-ATT/1-800-321-0288, except for calls from AT&T's cardphones. Stanley Cline somewhere near Atlanta, GA, USA roamer1(at)pobox.com http://scline.home.mindspring.com/ what's up with payphones?.......see http://cocot.home.mindspring.com/ spam not wanted here!....help outlaw spam - see http://www.cauce.org/ ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. Date: 16 Nov 1997 00:45:05 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates On Sat, 15 Nov 1997 04:00:36 GMT, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote: >> (Local, regional and long distance calls are all charged at this same >> rate as it is done in most European cellular networks. Nothing is >> charged for receiving incoming calls.) > Isn't that because landline users are charged extra to call mobile > phones? In India landline users pay the same to call a mobile phone as > to call another landline, so mobile users have to pay for incoming > calls too, about 60% of the rate for outgoing calls. I've heard, although not recently, arguments for both caller-pays and callee-pays approaches to cellular billing. I've never, however, heard anyone mention what _I_ consider to be the obvious reason why it ought to be the cellular sub who pays for the airtime part of the call: They're the one getting the convenience of the wireless service, why oughtn't _they_ be the one to pay for it? If I see fit to give out my cellular number to unsuspecting people, why should it be either that they should pay for my convenience, or even more importantly from a personal privacy standpoint, that I should even have to tell them it's a cellphone at _all_? I've given out my pager number for years now, without the messageon my voice mailbox saying anything more than "Sorry I can't take your call right now, leave a message"... and the only people the wiser are the ones I _tell_ ... which is as it should be. (Ok, the people who understand DID groups occasionally figure it out, too ... :-) Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth High Technology Systems Consulting Ashworth Designer Linux: Where Do You Want To Fly Today? & Associates ka1fjx/4 Crack. It does a body good. +1 813 790 7592 jra@baylink.com http://rc5.distributed.net NIC: jra3 ------------------------------ From: tzha0@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Tony Harminc) Subject: Re: 10XXX/101XXX Codes In Canada? Reply-To: tzha0@juts.ccc.amdahl.com Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA USA Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 22:38:41 GMT Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > Since I don't actually live in Canada, I couldn't say how certain > ideosynchosies and inconsistancies exist, such as calling the operator > or operator/card services, non-US international, etc. Generally the "00" code has not been implemented in Canada. The local telcos (through their Stentor alliance) maintained a monopoly on calling card calls handled via 0+ dialling, and the competitors were left to manage their own calling card systems accessed through 800 numbers. I believe the CRTC ordered the Stentor companies to accept other carriers' calling cards a year or so ago, but I don't know what's happened to the implementation. > It has been thatTeleglobe is the protected monopoly for calling > non-US internatinal locations, and such calls have been placed as before, > through your Canadian local telco's services. I don't know what happens if > you dial a 10[1X]XXX+ "CAC" first, then 011+. Nor do I know how > (straight) 011+ >calls would be handled if your primary toll carrier > were _not_ the toll services of "your local telephone company". > However, I understand that Teleglobe is soon supposed to be losing its > protected monopoly status if it hasn't lost it already. It could also > be that other carriers allow you to use them for 011+ calls, but they > are simply _reselling_ Teleglobe. Consumers have never dealt directly with Teleglobe; they dealt initially with the local monopoly carrier, and more recently with the LD carrier of their choice. The LD carrier sets the overseas rates and Teleglobe carries the call. (Actually Teleglobe did have some sort of business direct service a few years ago. Businesses with sufficient overseas volume could get a T1 directly to a Teleglobe POP, but that service went away as part of some agreement between Teleglobe and Stentor, I think.) Tony Harminc ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 17:03:12 -0500 In article , chip76@ix.netcom.com (Jeff Vinocur) wrote: > On Mon, 03 Nov 1997 13:30:08 -0800, Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc > Madison) wrote: >> Is there a phase-out date set yet for the elimination of the existing >> 10XXX carrier codes in favor of the new 101XXXX codes? I got a mailing >> from the "Dime Line" folks (whom I do not recommend, BTW) and noticed >> that the little stickers now say "DIAL 1010-811" instead of "DIAL 10811". > That reminds me -- I was using a pay phone last night (at a > high school in a somewhat rural area). I can't recall the carrier, I > am vaguely thinking Universal Telecom or something similar. Anyway, I > was trying to call home (we have an 888 number for such situations), > and it rejected it. I first thought perhaps my dad had restricted the > calling area, so I tried 1-800-CALL-ATT to use the calling card > instead. Same thing. It simply didn't like toll-free calls. I've > never seen this before, has anyone else? I have, more than once. There's a shopping mall in Bethpage, New York, suburb of New York City, that not only won't allow 800 calls, but also won't call 911 without a cash deposit. Same thing happened while using a pay phone in Chandler, Arizona. Couldn't use a 10XXX code, and couldn't reach AT&T via a toll-free number. Happened again with one of the few pay phones in Oradell, New Jersey (which is not rural at all). Couldn't use a 10XXX code and 800 calls were blocked. It's a common practice, even if illegal in some states. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #319 ******************************