Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA24689; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 20:44:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 20:44:08 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711050144.UAA24689@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #302 TELECOM Digest Tue, 4 Nov 97 20:44:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 302 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Ringdown - Drakesbad No.2 California (Mark J. Cuccia) AT&T Simplifies Basic Long Distance Rate Schedule (pheel@sprynet.com) Pac*Bell Payphones Going Up, Too (Linc Madison) Intl. Client Needs Management of Switch; Addl. Eqt. (jim@mast-ent.com) Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant (J. Oppenheimer) Good Book Still Available (Jim Haynes) 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, 04 Nov 1997 15:31:21 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Ringdown - Drakesbad No.2 California I finally placed a call to a non-customer-dialable location. Recently, I received some information from one of my Canadian telephone history contacts, which included a photocopy of a small advertisement from a 1997 tourism/travel brochure. The advertisement was for the Drakesbad Guest Ranch, in northern California, an old and rustic 'out-of-the-way' resort, with no electricity. From what I also found out, you can only reach Drakesbad via a dirt road in the Lassen National Forest. The advertisement did state a way to call them: "For reservations, call Drakesbad No.2 via Susanville CA Operator" I did place a call to Pacific Bell's Directory Operator in the 916 area code. At the time I called Directory, area code 530 hadn't yet been activated in Sprint's long-distance network, although the new area code had been activated in AT&T's network. However, I wanted to find out from genuine Pacific Bell Directory as to what listing they had for the Drakesbad Guest Ranch. If I had called via AT&T, I would _NOT_ have routed to Pacific Bell Directory, but rather "Excell Agency" 'pseudo' directory. So, I dialed 101-0333-1+916-KL.5-1212. The Pac*Bell Directory operator answered "Directory, what city?" When I told her "Drakesbad", she told me to hold the line while she checked her bulletin. Then she asked me who or what listing in Drakesbad I was looking for. When I told that I wanted the number for the Drakesbad Guest Ranch, she told me that I needed to call my long-distance operator and ask for Drakesbad No.2 California via the Susanville California Inward Operator. She told me that Drakesbad listings aren't customer dialable. I checked with the AT&T operator for rates. The first minute for a call to Drakesbad ringdowns are billed at rather expensive operator _HANDLED_ rates (most likely the same as "person" rates). The additional minutes were a bit higher than a direct-dialed call would have been, but not overly expensive. Billed at V&H-based distances from my area (New Orleans ratecenter), I was quoted the following: Day: $4.03 first minute, 41-cents each additional minute Evening/Holiday: $3.95 first minute, 34-cents each additional minute Nite/Weekend: $3.93 first minute, 29-cents each additional minute I also checked with the MCI and Sprint operators to see if they had any rates or service for such a ringdown or toll-station. The MCI operator (and her supervisor) had absolutely _NO_ idea of what a ringdown or toll-station was, nor even what an inward operator was. When I asked her what she would do if a customer needed to have her do a "busy-line-verification" or "emergency-interrupt" on a distant number (which requires reaching a local Bell or independent telco inward operator on the far-end to actually do the BLV or interrupt), she told me that she tells the customer to hang-up and then to dial 10288-0, i.e. that they would need to call AT&T. (I would hope that they will begin to state 1010288-0, since the expanded CIC/CAC dialing procedure becomes mandatory in January 1998) The Sprint-LD operator likewise didn't know what a ringdown point was but was familiar with "inward" LEC operators. But she didn't want to seem to look up billing (nor routing) information for a ringdown. She did tell me that they do call far-end LEC inward operators for BLV and to break-in (emergency-interrupt) assistance, but would only call distant inward if I had a full 7/10 digit number. On Monday night, I finally decided to attempt a call to Drakesbad No.2 via the AT&T Operator. I had the "mark-sense" billing information from Bellcore-TRA Rating documents I have purchased from time-to-time, and it was the same 887-439 code as AT&T Long-Lines had in a 1981 Rating document. The routing information to reach Susanville Ca's Inward was indicated as 916+028+ in both old AT&T and more recent Bellcore-TRA Routing documents. The actual local telco for Susanville CA is not Pacific Bell but rather an independent, Citizens' Utilities. But the Bellcore-TRA Rating documents indicated Drakesbad itself as being served by Pacific Bell. So, I dialed *70 (1170) first, as I didn't want anyone who might have been calling me at that moment to "Call-Waiting" beep my line while my call to Drakesbad was being set up or while I would actually be on the line with Drakesbad. Then I dialed '00' for my primary LD-carrier's operator. AT&T is the only inTER-LATA carrier in the US to assist in reaching such locations, and they are my primary inTER-LATA carrier, so I didn't have to dial 10(10)288+ first. During the AT&T voice-prompts for alternate services (grrrrr), I entered '0#' to cut-through direct to a live human operator. Of course, I did initially hear the pre-recorded voice "AT&T- How may I help you?" (again, GRRRR), while the live operator was coming on the line. I told her that I needed to call Drakesbad No.2 California, via Susanville California Inward. She asked me if this was "one of those ringdown toll stations". Of course, it was. I had the mark-sense billing information and operator's routing information to give her, but she still needed to look it up on her OSPS terminal. She didn't need to write-out a manual toll-ticket, since everything can now be keyed into the OSPS computer terminal. I could hear her clicking away on the keyboard. But the Kp+916+028+121+St inward operator routing seemed to give a reorder. I told her to try Kp+530+028+121+St, since that part of northern California is now changing over from NPA 916 to NPA 530. That code worked. We heard ringing and then "Susanville Inward" answered. The AT&T Operator asked the Susanville Inward Operator for "Drakesbad Number Two", to which the Susanville Opeartor answered "Thank you, ringing Drakesbad Number Two". I don't know if Susanville actually entered a non-published seven-digit number, or entered a three-digit trunk or routing code (0XX/1XX), or pressed a single "Drakesbad 2" button, into her TOPS terminal. According to the most recent Bellcore TRA Rating documents I've seen, there are several Drakesbad ringdown subscribers in that area, all with one or two digits after the name "Drakesbad". We heard standard "ESS" ringing indication tone, at the standard pace and cadence, although slightly 'clipped', similar to when dialing into a PBX. I assume that the ringing-indication tone was provided at the Nortel DMS-200 TOPS switch in Susanville. The line continued ringing with no answer, for almost one minute, and then we decided to abandon the attempt, and that I would call back later on. About an hour later, I went through the same process, and when Susanville Inward attempted to call Drakesbad No.2, we heard a busy signal, the standard "ESS" type busy signal, again somewhat 'clipped', similar to what is returned from many PBX systems. The particular Susanville Operator on this attempt kept trying to 'ring' Drakesbad No.2 and mentioned that she hadn't 'heard from them' in over a week. She did mention that maybe the Guest Ranch had closed for the winter, or that with the snow, that maybe the lines were 'down'. But she did tell us to try back later on. About a half-hour after that, I called '00' again to attempt to reach Drakesbad No.2. After all of the billing set-up and routing to Susanville Inward, there was an answer after about three rings. The line was answered by a man as "Drakesbad Guest Ranch". I asked if I had reached "Drakesbad Number Two", and the man at the other end, in a German accent answered that I did. I asked if the AT&T Operator was still on the line, and she said that she would now press 'start-timing' for billing. She told me that when I was finished with the call to simply hang-up -- that it was _not_ really necessary for me to 'flash' her back onto the line. I spoke with the man at Drakesbad No.2 for a few minutes, and asked him about what type of phone service the place had. He told me that all outgoing calls had to be placed through the Susanville CA Operator. He told me that his phone did have a dial (actually a touchtone keypad), and that when going offhook to place an outgoing call, he does receive a dialtone. _But_ when any (single) digit, other than zero, is dialed, he gets a busy signal. He didn't state if it were a 'fast' busy or a 'line' busy, but I assume that the busy was a reorder or fast busy. Dialing the single digit '0' does route him to the Susanville CA operator, who places all outgoing calls for him, including any calls to toll-free 800/888 numbers. His monthly bill comes from Citizens Utilities in Susanville, _not_ Pacific*Bell. Since he has a touchtone phone on his line, whenever he has a call placed to a service with voice/touchtone menus, he is able to enter the digits needed by the voice/menu system. But as for their telephone service itself, he did say that the Drakesbad Guest Ranch is considering leasing and installing a satellite mobile telephone setup, where dialable two-way calling can be provided. The audio quality of the connection was fine. I did _not_ detect any "old-style" transmission loss or 'hiss' on the connection. There was _no_ echo nor delay, neither. When I finished the call and hung up, since I had placed the call to the AT&T Operator on a 0/0+ type trunk, and since the operator had to manually enter the billing information and 'start-timing', it did take a few seconds for my central-office to completely release the trunk to AT&T's OSPS switch. I had picked up the phone about five seconds after hanging up from the call to Drakesbad, and I 're-rang' myself into an AT&T OSPS operator. I told her that I was trying to release my line from an earlier call, so she simply pressed "release-back", causing a 'forced-disconnect' from the OSPS trunk into my own originating local central-office switch. From what I understand, my AT&T 40%-off domestic discount plan applies _only_ to customer-dialed 1+ domestic calls (from home), and to domestic calling-card calls. The 40%-off discount might not necessarily apply to operator-handled calls to non-customer-dialable ringdown locations. When this call to Drakesbad No.2 California eventually shows up on the AT&T portion of my local monthly BellSouth billing, I will prepare a post as to how the call showed up, and what the final total charges were. I don't know if other Ringdown non-customer-dialable toll stations are set up in the same way as Drakesbad No.2 California. It might be that some don't have a dial or touchtone phone on the line, or if they do, it might be that they don't get a dialtone that they have to dial '0'. Some might still be 'manual common-battery' where they get the local operator right away when going offhook to place an outgoing call. Some might be magneto, with several other parties on the line, each able to call each other by cranking out coded rings, but cranking out a single _long_ ring to signal the local operator for calls going to the outside world. But since the rates are a bit more expensive than 'regular' dialable calls, I don't think that I will be calling many more such places for some time. NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x-) NWORLAIYCM1 (BellSouth-Mobility Hughes-GMH-2000 Cellular-MTSO NOL) NWORLAMA0GT (BellSouth DMS-100/200 fg-B/C/D Accss-Tandem "Main" 504+) NWORLAMA20T (BellSouth DMS-200 TOPS:Opr-Srvcs-Tandem "Main" 504+053+) NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll 060-T / 504-2T "Main" 504+) JCSNMSPS06T (AT&T #5ESS OSPS:Operator-Services-Tandem 601-0T 601+121) MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As always Mark, thanks for a very interesting and detailed report. PAT] ------------------------------ From: pheel@sprynet.com Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 16:40:31 -0500 Subject: AT&T Simplifies Basic Long Distance Rate Schedule Company Press Release AT&T Simplifies Basic Long Distance Rate Schedule NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 4, 1997--In response to customer calls for simplicity and the success of its One Rate calling plan, AT&T today announced several changes to its basic interstate schedule for residential direct-dialed calls. The company will replace its domestic basic schedule's day, evening and night/weekend time periods with peak, off-peak and weekend time periods and will eliminate all mileage bands. Calls will be priced at a single rate during each time period, regardless of distance. The new time periods are as follows: Peak 7 a.m. - 6:59 p.m. Monday - Friday Off-Peak 7 p.m. - 6:59 a.m. Monday - Friday Weekend All day Saturday and Sunday Rates for the peak, off-peak and weekend time periods are 28 cents, 16 cents and 13 cents per minute, respectively. With the elimination of mileage bands and changes in time periods, many customers will see lower prices, depending on when they make their calls. For example, calls placed Sunday evening will be priced up to 25 percent lower than the current rate. ``With millions of customers enrolled in its first year, the success of the AT&T One Rate calling plan has proved that customers want plans and services that offer competitive rates and are easy to understand,'' said Jack McMaster, AT&T vice president, Consumer Markets Division. ``With today's change, all consumers will find it easier to understand our basic rates and many customers will pay lower rates, depending on their calling patterns. In fact, for most residential direct-dialed interstate calls, AT&T's basic rates are actually the lowest among the top three long distance companies.'' The price changes become effective on Nov. 8, 1997, and do not affect AT&T customers who are enrolled in a calling plan. These changes apply only to AT&T's basic interstate residential direct-dialed rates, and do not affect the company's in-state calling plans. Contact: Mark Siegel Lee Ann Kuster 908-221-8422 (office) 602-482-0108 (office) 973-989-1101 (home) 602-482-1600 (home) INTERNET masiegel@attmail.com INTERNET lkuster@attmail.com ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Pac*Bell Payphones Going Up, Too Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 13:31:56 -0800 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM I posted last month about a local COCOT that raised its local-call rate from the state-mandated $0.20 to $0.35. This Sunday, I saw my first Pacific Bell payphone at 35 cents, in the middle of Golden Gate Park. So much for the benefits to the consumer of payphone deregulation. Higher prices for mostly much lower-quality service, with no meaningful competition. Merchants like PAT's friend, who has programmed the phone to be (*gasp*) useful at a fair price, are incredibly rare. I'm also very disappointed that the FCC remains hell-bent on setting an exorbitant per-call fee on 800/888 calls from payphones. Their original proposal of 35 cents per call was deemed excessive, so they changed it to 28 cents per call. That is still excessive! Further, it makes far more sense to make the charge based on time. I think a penny a minute is about right, or perhaps five cents for the first minute and a penny each additional, and that's making the assumption that ANY payment is warranted. Why are we giving an enormous WINDFALL with absolutely NOTHING in return?? ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ From: admin@mast-ent.com Subject: Intl. Client Needs Management of Switch + Additional Equipment Organization: LineX Communications (415) 455-1650 Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 00:02:35 GMT We have a international long distance company as a client in Taipei, Taiwan which provides essentially a intl. call through service for its client overseas. NEEDS - They are looking for a hardware expert in the U.S., located in the Los Angeles area, capable of handling upgrading & management of both their existing switch equipment and the new equipment they wish to install. As they detail in the client's below email excerpt we have included in the bottom half of this message. ================================================= If you have the capabilities and knowhow to manage the equipment listed in the client's below description and have recommendations on new equipment the client could use in upgrading, OR You know someone in the L.A. area who you could refer us to: PLEASE CONTACT: JIM @ Association of Independent Telecommunications Managers. 425-702-9151 (Off.) PLEASE REVIEW ENTIRE EMAIL BEFORE 425-702-8758 (Fax) CONTACTING US!! 888-218-5601 (Toll Free to Off.) jim@mast-ent.com Email ================================================ APPLICATION - Clients overseas place a call into their Taipei switch. pOnce the call is determined to be a international destination, their switch in Taiwan routes the call across their private line to their Los Angeles switch, which is co-located at the current carrier they are using in Rosemead, CA (L.A. suburb). Their switch in Los Angeles then routes the call as a U.S. originated international call out on their current international carrier under their wholesale intl. rates. They want their new equipment to be able to "Least cost route" calls to different international carriers they will be using, depending on which country the call will terminate to. Their business has expanded 6x in the past year. We are replacing their 192k current circuit with a 384k Private Line between their Switch in Taipei and the Los Angeles area. They currently operate a 192k Private line with another carrier and their current switch is in Rosemead, CA (L.A. suburb), which they are going to disconnect when we have the new setup installed. They need to purchase the new upgrade equipment right now, but they will be very flexible in where they locate it, based on either co-locating their switch in their chosen long distance carrier's POP, or renting space as close to the chosen POP as they can. When they choose the new Private Line and the carrier options, out of 3 - 4 different quotes we have arranged for them, we will know where exactly they will wish to locate their new equipment, but MOST LIKELY IN OR AROUND THE 1 Wilshire Blvd. complex where we are finding most intl. carriers have their POP's located. =================================================== We have provided below excerpts from one of our email messages with the client, which will give you the details on thier current equipment and needs. As you can tell, the client has quite a bit of broken English, but gets her point across enough to understand their needs and equipment specs. =================================================== (Beginning of client Email details) As I mention through the phone that we do not have our engineer in US but we had a partner which we can place our hardware equipment to co-locations but his international outbound rates are too high, so we might need to relocation our equipment to minimize our cost. ( We need 24 phone lines to connect our switch to the international carrier.) Here are the equipment is our both locations US - Rosemead and Taiwan - Taipei. PBX - Fujitsu # E -650 Multiplexer - Northern Telecom - Magellan Passport #NTEP39. ( This multiplexer does not have fax service function; therefore, even though that our individual line is 12kb but still have difficult time to complete facsimile. Therefore, we need to re-structure entire new system to replace the current system to generate minutes' usage but the new system must able to use in "Frame Relay's structure". Currently, our engineers in Taiwan are developing the voice card to replace current PBX, but we would also like to hear your option by either install the PBX or voice card is better for us. Understand that there is no one carrier has lowest cost overall rates to all countries, so for the new system that we must have "least cost routing". Please list the price quotation for our new frame relay system and with PBX please include software. Will call you today for future detail for update status. Thanks and Best Regards, Cheryl ================================================ If you have the capabilities and knowhow to manage the equipment listed in the client's above description and have recommendations on new equipment the client could use in upgrading, OR You know someone in the L.A. area who you could refer us to: PLEASE CONTACT: JIM @ Association of Independent Telecommunications Managers 425-702-9151 (Off.) PLEASE REVIEW ENTIRE EMAIL BEFORE 425-702-8758 (Fax) CONTACTING US!! 888-218-5601 (Toll Free to Off.) jim@mast-ent.com Email ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 18:24:25 -0500 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news... commentary... consulting... Subject: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant August, 1997 Federal appeals court decision regarding 1-800-FOR LEASE. This case involved a finding by the jury that the number wrongfully denied the plaintiff by WorldCom was, in and of itself, worth $50K to the plaintiff. --------------- New York, NY November 5, 1997 (ICB TOLL FREE NEWS) The August, 1997 appellate court decision regarding WorldCom/Play Time (located in ICB TOLL FREE NEWS' Regulatory Reading Room, or email joppenheimer@ icbtollfree.com for a copy) is, at first glance, a fairly straight- forward ruling on a matter of contract law and civil litigation procedures. The court ruled, in essence, that WorldCom blew it by not keeping their right hand informed of what a left hand was doing, and that they breached a contractual obligation as a result. The court also upheld the trial court's method of handling the matter, including allowing the jury to decide the value of the number at issue, and the method of valuation chosen. In those respects the opinion is unremarkable, just like any other breach of contract litigation, except this one involved an 800 number rather than a car, or a business, or a book deal, etc. In the process of making its ruling, however, the court touched on two issues that are extremely important vis-a-vis the toll free issues 800 marketers are currently dealing with at the FCC. These come under the headings of (1) the inherent value of vanity numbers, and (2) the prohibition on transfers. Inherent Value of Vanity Numbers Both the trial court judge and the appellate court panel had no difficulty with the concept that there is an inherent value to a toll free vanity number. The number had value to the plaintiff solely by reason of his intended but not yet implemented business plan. The jury, hearing evidence from both sides, determined that the number was worth $50,000 to the plaintiff. This was obviously not value resulting from years of use and public familiarity. It was an inherent value, created solely by the plaintiff's intellectual exercise of recognizing the vanity pneumonic and developing a business plan to exploit it. If were true that numbers have no inherent value, the plaintiff would not have suffered any monetary damage. But the jury found convincing evidence of monetary damage to the tune of $50K. It is important to understand the subtle nuance here. This was not a jury finding that the plaintiff had lost $50K in profits or business because he did not have the number -- it is possible for my loss of something that has no inherent value in and of itself, to nonetheless cause me to lose money. But that is not what this case was about, or at least not the basis on which it was decided and the damages awarded. Rather, this case involved a finding by the jury that the number wrongfully denied the plaintiff by WorldCom was, in and of itself, worth $50K to the plaintiff. The jury was asked to determine the "fair market value" of the number. In so doing, they applied a "willing-transferor-willing-transfer" standard. This means that they assumed there were two parties, one willing to buy and one willing to sell the number. They further assumed that these hypothetical parties would negotiate an agreement that was mutually acceptable to both of them - the "ideal" compromise, as it were. Their task was to decide, based on all the evidence they heard at the hearing, what the dollar figure was at which these two hypothetical parties would agree. They ruled it was $50K, and that was based, at least in part, on evidence that the plaintiff had almost agreed to pay $50K to a third party (the one to whom WorldCom improperly transferred the number), a deal which fell apart not because of the purchase price, but because of an inability to agree on a nonrefundable deposit. Prohibition on Transfers WorldCom argued "that the Number had no market value because its sale, brokering, barter, or release for a consideration was prohibited." This did not sway the appellate court. The court correctly noted that, lack of "ownership rights" and "prohibitions on transfers" notwithstanding, an end user still has the right to control its 800 service, including ultimate right to direct the status (reserved, active, or assigned) to its own toll free number. It was this right that WorldCom deprived the plaintiff of when is mis-assigned his promised number, and the court had not problem with basing a $50,000 judgment on the value of the lost number. This case thus supports what toll-free advocates have argued to the FCC, namely, that the oft-stated policy that numbers are a public resource and that users do not obtain "ownership" rights in them, is not really relevant to the issue of the commercial transfer of numbers. You can legislate, regulate, and pontificate away all the "property" and "ownership" rights you wish, but at the end of the day, toll free customers still have a number of rights and benefits associated with the particular toll free number assigned (or to be assigned) to them, and that bundle of rights can often be quite valuable in a monetary sense. The appellate court recognized this (though it didn't say it in quite those words) and was therefore not blinded by the prohibition on transfers. Impact on FCC Proceedings This opinion will not necessarily be binding on the FCC. The case does not turn on an interpretation of any federal communications law or FCC rule or policy. But, even though it is not absolutely binding on the FCC, it is nonetheless a very useful precedent. It can't hurt, and it may help advance the cause of toll-free users. Judith Oppenheimer, Publisher ICB TOLL FREE NEWS - http://www.icbtollfree.com Mailto:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com with your name, company name and title to activate 15-day FREE Online trial subscription. Incl. fax number (U.S. only) for FREE Fax Edition trial subscription. FREE GIFT OFFER: mailto:freegift@icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ From: Jim Haynes Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 15:34:24 -0800 Subject: Good Book Still Available I discovered the other day, browsing the U.C. Press web page http://www-ucpress.berkeley.edu that the following book is still available in paperback only. Claude S. Fischer America Calling - a social history of the telephone to 1940. ISBN 0-520-08647-3, published in 1992. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #302 ******************************