Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA14753; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:31:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:31:32 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711070231.VAA14753@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #304 TELECOM Digest Thu, 6 Nov 97 21:31:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 304 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Slams Dad of [Texas] PUC Chairman (Jack Perdue) Book Review: "sendmail" by Costales/Allman (Rob Slade) Re: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant (Al Varney) Speaking of Customer Service (Corky Sarvis) Call for Papers (David Loomis) Risks is Alive and Well (TELECOM Digest Editor) Fujitsu vs. Lucent ACDs (phs3@watvm.uwaterloo.edu) 900 Number Help (Steven Gaunt) RFD: comp.dcom.telecom.nortel (ghtrout@mail.execpc.com) Re: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? (Al Varney) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jkp2866@unix.NOSPAM.tamu.edu (Jack Perdue) Subject: AT&T Slams Dad of [Texas] PUC Chairman Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 22:54:37 GMT Organization: Silicon Slick's Software, Supplies and Support Services This was so dang funny I just had to share it with the Digest. I especially like the part where the head of the PUC gets the runaround -- just like the rest of us. ;) jack jkp2866@cs.tamu.edu ------------------- From the November 5th, 1997 {Houston Chronicle} AT&T slams dad of PUC chairman Service switch draws attention to problem By POLLY ROSS HUGHES Copyright 1997 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau AUSTIN -- Telephone slamming victims, take heart. Even the father of Texas Public Utility Commission Chairman Pat Wood III is not immune. Long-distance giant AT&T, it turns out, slammed Port Arthur businessman Pat Wood Jr., who discovered last month that six of his nine business lines had been switched to a more expensive AT&T long-distance service. The practice, known as "slamming," is illegal and happens to be regulated by the PUC. But, for all his clout, Wood said, his personal efforts on behalf of his father led to two hours of frustrating runarounds that yielded few answers about what happened. "If the chairman of a state commission has this much difficulty with the world of `customer service,' how in hell can we expect the customers to navigate this maze?" Wood asked in a memo to PUC Commissioner Judy Walsh and other agency officials. "I had hoped that a competitive marketplace in long distance would've resulted in more high-quality customer service by now." AT&T also doesn't know how it could have surreptitiously switched the senior Wood's lines to more expensive AT&T services, said company spokesman Jim Van Orden. "We are investigating this case cited by PUC Chairman Wood," he said. "AT&T believes that even one accusation that we may have unintentionally slammed a customer is a concern." Van Orden said AT&T has the lowest slamming rate of residential customers tracked by the Federal Communications Commission in 1996, but he did not have comparable rankings for slamming of business customers. A new state law that went into effect Sept. 1 requires companies found guilty of slamming to pay the cost of switching customers back to original providers and to refund charges resulting from slamming. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 10:59:03 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "sendmail" by Costales/Allman BKSNDMAL.RVW 970705 "sendmail", Bryan Costales/Eric Allman, 1997, 1-56592-222-0, U$39.95/C$56.95 %A Bryan Costales bcx@bcx.com %A Eric Allman eric@cs.berkeley.edu %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 1997 %G 1-56592-222-0 %I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. %O U$39.95/C$56.95 800-998-9938 707-829-0515 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com %P 1050 %T "sendmail", 2nd ed. Sendmail might not be the heart of UNIX mail and communications services, but it certainly is a good portion of the autonomic nervous system. Although considered venerable by some, it is also extremely widely used. This book hopes to make sendmail administration not only easy, but fun. Quite a task. Part one of the book is tutorial in nature, starting with background information in chapter one. We are given a brief history and philosophy of sendmail, plus some description of the component parts, and the related Internet RFCs (Request For Comment) and technologies. (RFCs, the name to the contrary, are the descriptions of how Internet functions should work. In a sense, they are the standards of the Internet.) The tutorial covers the invocation and switches, the configuration file, mail delivery agents, macros, rules, rules and more rules, class macros, options, headers, and miscellaneous topics. Part two deals with administration and management, and runs you through the process of configuring, compiling and installing sendmail. It also has specifics of V8 as well as DNS (Domain Name Server). More advanced topics, such as security, the queue, aliases, mailing lists, forwarding, logging and statistics are now in a new part three. Part four is the reference, and chapters list the options for delivery agents; defined, class and database macros; options, headers, the command line and debugging. There are appendices and a bibliography. Because of the nature of the book, you will find a fair amount of material duplicated (for example between the tutorial on delivery agents, and the reference sections). However, the duplicated material, and the short chaptering make this an excellent reference work overall. The material is generally clear and well laid out. The tutorial section is definitely for the technically advanced: I suspect the authors have a ways to go before many people find sendmail "fun". copyright Robert M. Slade, 1993, 1997 BKSNDMAL.RVW 970705 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke http://www2.gdi.net/~padgett/trial.htm ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant Date: 6 Nov 1997 15:22:27 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , Judith Oppenheimer wrote: > New York, NY November 5, 1997 (ICB TOLL FREE NEWS) In August, 1997, > the Federal Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld a district court > judgement between Playtime, Inc. and Worldcom, Inc., regarding the > toll-free number 1-800-FOR LEASE. > .... 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. > 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. Judith, I can understand your basic argument, but have problems with some of the logical extensions of them. It would seem a property right in numbers similar to a TV station broadcast frequency license might be a reasonable claim. But to claim an ownership/right to a number that was never used in trade seems a stretch. If I "find" an 800 number with some alphabetic or even numeric attractiveness, have I established some right to that number at the moment of "discovery"? If I apply for that number through a RespOrg, do I have a right established at that point, even if the RespOrg (and indeed, the entire world) is unaware of my "discovery" of the number's value? [I'm not expecting an answer to each question -- they're just a means of exploring the problem domain. - ALV] Or do I have to apply for trademark protection of the "discovery" in order to claim it has a value? If I trademark something like 800-FOR-LEASE, but haven't applied to a RespOrg in order to become the assignee, do I have a right established at that point? What if the number is already in use (as 800-DMS-LEASE, perhaps by NorTel?). Do I still have a right associated with the NUMBER? Or just the 800-FOR-LEASE string? If I ask a RespOrg to assign me the number if/when NorTel releases it, and the number is grabbed by another RespOrg upon release, do I have a valid claim of damages? What if two RespOrgs are asked by two entities desiring the number (the Wyoming Department of Natural Resources wants 800-DNR-LEASE for an upcoming auction of grazing rights, and Playtime wants 800-FOR-LEASE). Does the industry need to establish a queue of potential assignees? If so, doesn't that mean that THOSE numbers have value while they are in the pool, and thus the FCC (and the taxpayers) should receive payment when assigning those numbers to customers? So, two basic questions: WHEN does an entity have a claim of ownership or "rights" in a TollFree number? And are there any circumstances under which the "public" would receive payment for use of this "public resource" (TollFree numbers) -- or is it only the assignees/buyers that financially benefit, and their brokers? If 800-FOR-LEASE is valuable to Playtime, why isn't it an asset of the FCC or the 800 number administrator or the RespOrg? Shouldn't Playtime have to "buy" the number, or is its value just created from thin air by the "discovery" of it's previously-untrademarked mnemonic or numerological (800-666-FACT) attributes? If "customers" can sell a number, could a RespOrg "buy" them? If so, would the RespOrg now be able to "sell" the number they previously had to "give away"? If a RespOrg purchases a number, but doesn't use it, does it then have to be returned to the pool? If the NANC decides expansion of the NANP requires expanding the 800 number format to more than 10 digits, can the entity with "rights" to 800-FLOWERS claim damages from the FCC, because it would be losing that "number"? Or would you argue that the entity is entitled to "protect" its interests by having first chance to be assigned the whole 800F-LOWE-RSxx range? Or would you argue the NANC has no legal right to expand the 800-number format, because some companies have "discovered" an eternal right to the current format? And the ultimate question: Do you feel comfortable having various courts answer these questions, or would you prefer that the FCC establish the rules? --------------- By the way, the FCC recently re-affirmed the "public resource" concept regarding numbers. On Oct. 20, 1997, regarding something AT&T might value more than any 800 number, (the 10288 carrier access code), the FCC stated: 58. Second, we find that VarTec's service mark argument fails. While we agree with VarTec that trademarks and service marks are property rights, we find that because CICs and CACs are telephone numbers and, therefore, a public resource, there can be no private ownership of them. We specifically reject VarTec's assertion that there is a lack of legal authority to support the propositions that NANP codes are a public resource, and that use of such codes does not confer ownership. (From Order extending deadline for 7-digit Carrier Access Codes, and effectively removes the 5-digit 10XXX Carrier Access Code from the NANP mid-1998. VarTec argued that existing 10XXX numbers should be grand-fathered and remain in the dialing plan, along with 1010XXXX codes. Two arguments against elimination of 10XXX were: - [it] takes VarTec's private property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment and - [it] violates VarTec's commercial free speech rights under the First Amendment; These sound like arguments against format expansion of 800-numbers ... See http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/fcc97386.txt) Al Varney - just my (automatically copyrighted) opinion ------------------------------ From: Corky Sarvis Organization: Our Lady of the Lake University Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 16:51:12 CDT Subject: Speaking of Customer Service Pat, I thought that I would write this short article to (a.) document what has been happening with my MCI connection and (b.) to see if anyone else have been having the same "challenges". Last Tuesday (28 October 1997), I noticed a marked lack of numeric pages being received by my Nationwide Pager provided by MCI. I usually receive 10-15 calls per day on it. I found some time late that morning and called the 1-800 number for Customer Service. About a month ago, we changed telephone numbers at home. I told the MCI representative at that time that we were changing numbers and that I wanted my pager, 800 and 500 service, as well as my long-distance service to follow from the old number to the new number. He said, "No problem! I can take care of that for you." Well, take care of it, he did! My long-distance at the new home number is working and is through MCI. (I verified it through the 1-700 number.) However, the pager, 800 and 500 numbers didn't make the jump. As I said, I called the 1-800 number for Customer Service. They fiddle- faddled around and kept me on-hold for quite some time. Finally, the representative came back on and told me, rather snipily, actually, that since I had terminated service with them that it would be three to four business days to switch the pager, 800 and 500 numbers back on. I asked her if this time delay could be shortened. More snipily, she said that "no", nothing could be done. I went back to my planner and told her the day, date, time and person that I spoke with and what this chap said that he could do by " ... taking care of me." Again, almost rudely now, she said no such help. Still, my fault. So, being the patient sort of person that I am, I waited. Today is the 5th of November. It has been a bit longer than the three to four business days. The 800 number and 500 number are back alive. They need to be programmed correctly. However, the digital, nationwide pager is still dead as a doornail. I called the techno-geeks this morning and got told that they could see the order to "reinstate your service" in the computer but couldn't tell me when it would be reinstated. I called the customer representatives and had a very nice conversation with a lady who took all of my information all over again. She said that she, too, could see the original order from the 28th of October. However, she was going to put a double-rush on the reinstatement and that I should have my Nationwide pager back-on sometime later this week or maybe the next. Has anyone else observed or experienced such cavalier behaviour on the part of an otherwise, formally top-drawer company? Talking to the droids at MCI is like talking to the IRS. Information, if provided, when provided, may or may not be correct and certainly won't be in a timely manner or even accurate. Comments? Corky Sarvis, Director Weekend College and Special Programs Our Lady of the Lake University San Antonio, Texas, USA ...................................................................... Robert J. "Corky" Sarvis, M.B.A. Weekend College & Special Programs Our Lady of the Lake University San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A. ...................."I Can! I Will! I Shall!........................ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 11:01:24 -0600 From: David Loomis Subject: Call for Papers CALL FOR PAPERS 16th Annual INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS FORECASTING CONFERENCE Demand Analysis and Technology Forecasting in the Information Age June 9-12, 1998 Hyatt Regency at Union Station St. Louis, Missouri U.S.A. Hosted by Illinois State University 16th Annual International Communications Forecasting Conference http://www.econ.ilstu.edu/icfc/home.htm The International Communications Forecasting Conference (ICFC) is a professional forum for forecasters, demand analysts, market researchers, product managers, statisticians, academics, and consultants within, or interested in, the communications industry. The ICFC provides insight into and analysis of existing and emerging issues as they pertain to communications forecasting, planning, demand analysis, market research and cost analysis. The theme of the 1998 conference is "Demand Analysis and Technology Forecasting in the Information Age." Advances in technology, intensifying competition, and the evolving regulatory framework create opportunities and risks for all the industry participants. The evolving global communications industry affords unprecedented international competition and cooperation. Convergence has erased industry lines between communications, information and entertainment providers, and technology is eliminating distinctions between wireline, wireless, and satellite services. The conference will include plenary sessions, concurrent sessions and tutorials. Professionals and academics with expertise in telecommunications demand, market analysis, forecasting, product management, industry competition, technology and related fields are strongly invited to submit papers for the concurrent sessions on areas of interest as listed below. Please submit abstracts of 200 words or less by mail, fax or e-mail on or BEFORE MARCH 2, 1998 to: (preferred mode is e-mail) ... David G. Loomis Tel: 309-438-7979 Illinois State University Fax: 309-438-5228 Department of Economics e-mail: dloomis@ilstu.edu Campus Box 4200 Normal IL 61790-4200 Abstracts will be reviewed by the Conference Planning Committee and notification of acceptance will be given by March 31, 1998. Presentations should be about 20 minutes followed by a brief discussion. If more time is required for your proposed presentation or you have any special audio-visual or computer requirements, please indicate so in your abstract. All presenters are required to register for the conference under the early registration fee. A limited number of registration scholarships may be available to academic and government presenters. Papers presented at the conference are also eligible to be included in a conference publication. Organized by Representatives from: AT&T Ameritech Bell Atlantic Bell Canada Bellcore Bell South Cincinnati Bell GTE ICG Telecom Group Lucent Technologies MCI Nokia SBC Communications SNET Sprint Telstra (Australia) US West WIK (Germany) **************************************** David G. Loomis Email: dloomis@ilstu.edu Illinois State University Voice: (309) 438-7979 Department of Economics FAX: (309) 438-5228 Campus Box 4200 Normal, IL 61790-4200 Web Site: http://odin.cmp.ilstu.edu/~dloomis/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 20:16:16 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Risks is Alive and Well I suppose I have received at least three dozen replies in the past several days responidng to Rick DeMattia's inquiry regarding RISKS. In every case the respondent said RISKS is indeed alive and wll, and being published regularly. Several respondents did say that Usenet propogation of RISKS is not that great; I would say the same about this Digest. Anyway, I hope that answers the question. PAT ------------------------------ From: p.h.s.3.@watvm.uwaterloo.ca Subject: Fujitsu vs. Lucent ACDs Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 23:54:16 GMT Organization: Erol's Internet Services Our office is considering Fujitsu and Lucent ACDs/PBXs to replace an ancient ROLM (the cream-colored phones, *not* a 9751; I'm not even sure what vintage it is). I'm sure either would be better than this 1980s technology, but does anyone have any good/bad experiences with either to suggest? TIA ..phsiii Remove dots from userid portion of From: to reply. ------------------------------ From: Steven Gaunt Subject: 900 Number Help Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 04:19:24 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Is there anyway to fight the charges for a 900 Call? I had notified BellSouth about two years ago that I wanted 900/976 blocking. Two months ago, a $75 charge showed up. Upon some checking, it seems my 11 year old had dialed a Physic 800 number that rolled to a 900 number. I called BellSouth and they essentially said to bad! I needed to call the carrier of that call. So I finally got through to ATT's 900 complaint line and the end result with them was tough. I had to pay the charge. Well, I still have not paid the charge, but I am getting hounded by ATT to do so. Any suggestions? Will a state's PSC do anything or will I end up paying the charge. Thanks in advance, Steve Gaunt [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Absolutely do NOT pay the charge. Quite simply, your local carrier and AT&T violated their own rules by charging you for the call. You already were on record with both (they subscribe to and use the same common database as does MCI and Sprint and all local telcos) as a subscriber who requested no 900/976 charges, nor the essence of same. It is unreasonable for any telco to assume an eleven year old child is sophisticated enough to understand that a traditionally 'toll- free' number can be converted, and although I am not certain what the latest rules are, my belief is that it is illegal for carriers to convert the charges in the way this was done. Are you otherwise a subscriber of AT&T? If so, this might be a perfect reason to simply take all your long distance business elsewhere. As unlikely as it is that their corporate left hand will know what their right hand is doing, chances are in a month or three, they'll be sending you a hundred dollar bribery payment to get you back as a customer anyway, and if you wish just use that check to pay off the psychic charge if they have not already written it off by then. If they choose to give you the 'access to the AT&T network is denied' routine, well that will really be a big loss for you won't it ... ... I know when they ran an Ameritech billing tape twice and double billed me then refused for months to correct it and finally cut me off, I was terribly upset about it ... I just tossed a couple more of my lines over to Frontier and kissed AT&T goodbye. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ghtrout@mail.execpc.com Subject: RFD: comp.dcom.telecom.nortel Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 21:20:39 -0600 Organization: Exec-PC BBS Internet - Milwaukee, WI REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) Unmoderated group - comp.dcom.telecom.nortel This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a worldwide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup: comp.dcom.telecom.nortel This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details are below. NEWSGROUP LINE: - comp.dcom.telecom.nortel - Technical discussions of Nortel telecommunications products and systems. RATIONALE: comp.dcom.telecom.nortel Nortel (previously Northern Telecom) telecommunications equipment is installed in more businesses than any other manufacturer. Having a Usenet newsgroup for Nortel system owners, technicians and administrators will provide an excellent forum to ask questions and obtain answers about Nortel equipment. Nortel designs, manufactures, and supplies a breadth of products for digital networks of all kinds, but is most commonly known as the manufacturer of the Meridian, Norstar and DMS line of business telephone systems. Customers are typically local and long-distance telecommunications companies, cellular mobile radio and personal communications services providers, businesses, universities, governments, cable television companies, competitive local access providers, and other network operators around the world. CHARTER: comp.dcom.telecom.nortel This group would encourage posting of material relating to the installation, administration, maintenance and new technologies relevant in the Nortel line of business telecommunications equipment. Posts might include questions and answers about system programming, hardware setup, product capabilities, sources for third party add-ons, vendor recommendations, user group meetings, product bulletins, and similar posts. The group would be unmoderated. Suppliers, as well as end-users of the equipment would be invited, as this would offer the widest range of talent and information for the reader. Binaries, spam, scams, flames, libel; etc. would be discouraged and should not be posted in this newsgroup. PROCEDURE: This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it. Please do not attempt to vote until this happens. All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups. This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal". Please refer to these documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: alt.dcom.telecom comp.dcom.telecom comp.dcom.telecom.tech news.announce.newgroups news.groups Proponent: Gene T. ghtrout@mail.execpc.com http://www.execpc.com/~ghtrout/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This was posted as a courtesy here since many readers may enjoy such a forum; however please conduct the requisite discussion in the unmoderated groups noted above. PAT] ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? Date: 5 Nov 1997 23:44:25 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , 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". You'll find this at: The answer is: June 30, 1998 > Also, after the discontinuation of 10XXX, will all codes be 101XXXX, or > will they at some point generalize to 10XXXXX? > (Where do I sign up for my own code, so my friends can dial 10XXXXX-0-# > if they don't want to bother with my 800 number? ;-P ;-b ;-P ) The document also addresses these issues. The NANC and INC have rules that probably preclude low-usage XXXXX assignment, unless you can demonstrate significant calling traffic. You're better off trying to get your own 950-XXXX number -- and the FG-B tariff is usually cheaper than FG-D. Al Varney - just my opinion ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #304 ******************************