Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA06047; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 09:32:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 09:32:45 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199712041432.JAA06047@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #340 TELECOM Digest Thu, 4 Dec 97 09:31:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 340 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges (Adam H. Kerman) Latest FCC Regs: Cellular Phones Must Handle 911 Calls (Danny Burstein) Cellular Phones to Cease Blocking 911 Calls (Lee Winson) Book Review: "Looking into Intranets & the Internet" by Rosen (Rob Slade) Nortel to Deploy "Internet Call Waiting" (Monty Solomon) Bell Atlantic/NYPSC - Strange Bedfellows (John Stahl) Listing of npa/nxx Codes Wanted (Larry Dalton) CEME '98 Announcement (Soon Y. Choi) Re: New York City's New AC Also an Exchange in Neighboring 201 (Greg Monti) Re: New York City's New AC Also an Exchange in Neighboring 201 (L. Finch) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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: ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) Subject: Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges Date: 2 Dec 1997 12:50:09 -0600 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site In article , Linc Madison wrote: > No, companies DO NOT compete for my payphone business. They compete for > access to the premises they want. That's quite different. In a great > many situations, it is not possible to "shop around" because the payphones > are single-sourced. > No, a less expensive payphone is not likely to be around the corner if > you are in an airport terminal, in a train or bus station, on the > campus of a university, or in an office building. There are just far > too many situations where there is no competition whatsoever. > It is also categorically NOT in the PSP's interests to meet the needs > of the caller. It is in the PSP's interests to set their rates as > high as they can, in order to compensate the owner of the premises. > The PSP has very little interest in the needs or desires of the end user. I agree with you. Let me take a controversial position here (you knew I would, didn't you?): I see nothing wrong with property owners attempting to maximize the revenues they get from COCOTs. I see nothing wrong with property owners screwing potential users of these phones. A property owner SHOULD be in the business of attempting to earn the highest posssible revenues from his site. What is morally wrong is that our society tends to subsidize inefficient land users. If the property owner annoys too many people with his COCOT policies, his revenues from other uses of his site will decrease. Let the marketplace prove him wrong. (Before anyone blasts me for allowing public facilities, such as airport terminals, set COCOT policies with impugnity, let me remind you that I think ANY landowner, particularly the government, should pay site value taxes.) For all intents and purposes, a landowner has a monopoly on the use of that site. He doesn't have to allow just anyone access to his site, or rent space to anyone, as long as he complies with applicable civil rights laws. He is under no obligation to make life easier for anyone who might need to use a payphone. As a consumer, I can influence those policies. But, the person to complain to is not the FCC, the COCOT operator, or your long distance carrier. Complain to the site manager. I was in a restaurant the other day. The food was decent, it's convenient to me. I attempted to interrogate my answering machine, but the pay phone refused to generate DTMF after the call was placed. I lost 35 cents. I explained to the restaurant manager that I didn't approve of his business practices, and would never return. I would grow old waiting for the FCC to crack down on him, when I can more easily and effectively take matter into my own hands. > The long distance companies aren't the problem. The FCC is the > problem. The FCC set an exorbitant "default" rate for these calls. > There's just no excuse for this gross malfeasance. The FCC is not at fault; Congress is. Any compensation rate set by regulators is fundamentally unfair. It is impossible to know what the marginal costs are to the PSP without examining the situation on a case-by-case basis. Is there a bank of pay phones? Then, numerous toll-free calls will impose a small opportunity cost. Is there only a single phone? Then, a few toll-free calls could result in a higher potential revenue loss. In my view, it is far more serious that pay phones get the compensation despite having to establish that their phones will not block calls routed via the IXC of the customer's choice, using any established dialling method (950-XXXX, 10(10)XXX-0+). On many COCOT's, it is impossible to reach the LEC operator or directory assistance bureau. The providers don't have to prove that their phones can place calls to any toll-free number, accept callbacks, display the telephone's number, or the company that operates the phone. The payphone providers don't even have to establish that the phones are capable of providing a clear connection. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 10:13:00 EST From: Danny Burstein Subject: Latest FCC Regs: Cellular Phones Must Handle 911 Calls Nothing yet on the FCC web site, so here's an AP story. The reporter seems to have mangled some details, but it looks like the FCC is finally pushing through the 911 mandate. (oh, and the "FTC" in the headline is the way it was written...) FTC recommends guaranteed status emergency cellular calls By JEANNINE AVERSA The Associated Press 12/01/97 6:40 PM Eastern WASHINGTON (AP) -- Cellular phone users will be guaranteed that emergency 911 calls will be completed, just as calls made from regular phones are, under action taken by federal regulators Monday. The Federal Communications Commission's action clears the way for key parts of rules adopted in June 1996 to go into effect. The FCC had delayed enforcement of the rules to address industry concerns. Minor changes were made to the rules, which are to take effect in about a week, an FCC spokeswoman said. "When it comes to helping people in emergency situations, we have an obligation to do all that we can to make sure that there are no impediments to their receiving help," said FCC Chairman Bill Kennard. Millions of calls to 911 are made over cellular phones. The FCC's rules would ensure that 911 calls be completed when a cellular customer "roams" into areas in which his or her company does not have an agreement with the local cellular provider to carry the call. For years, those calls typically were not completed. But the FCC now says that the situation is improving and that many cellular companies on their own give special treatment to connecting 911 calls. Also, people whose cellular service had lapsed could call 911 as long as the phone's "mobile identification number" had not changed, the FCC said. The identification number is generally the cellular phone number. The same would apply to cell phone owners who never subscribed to a cellular service but who have an identification number. When a cellular phone does not have a mobile identification number -- usually when a phone has not been activated -- the FCC will require cellular companies to complete emergency calls. Originally, the FCC said it would let local or state governments that run 911 dispatch centers decide whether to require cellular companies to complete these calls. The FCC rules also require cellular companies to upgrade their networks with technology to locate a 911 caller. Unlike 911 calls made from regular phones, the location of a cell phone caller is not automatically sent to emergency dispatchers. Knowing the caller's location is essential for a prompt response, public safety groups say. The FCC will require cellular companies beginning Oct. 1, 2001, to upgrade their networks with technology that tells 911 dispatchers the location of an emergency caller to within a radius of about 125 yards. In the meantime, the FCC is requiring cellular companies as of April 1, 1998, to give 911 dispatchers the capability to call back the person making an emergency call. When a New Jersey commuter train crashed several years ago, some passengers whipped out their cellular phones and called 911, but because they didn't know where the train was, the communications were of little help to rescuers. When people call 911 from regular phones, 911 dispatchers automatically get the number of the caller because it travels with the call over the telephone wire. The phone numbers are instantly matched with addresses on a data base. With cellular phones, the numbers are not linked to a location. _________________________________________________________________ Please send any questions or comments to newsflash@nj..com. Copyright 1997 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Cellular Phones to Cease Blocking 911 Calls Date: 2 Dec 1997 23:01:06 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS A brief article appeared in {USA Today} (Tue 12/2/97) saying that the FCC will issue regulations requiring cellular carriers to not block 911 calls from cell phones of competiting companies, and to improve the service quality of 911 responsiveness to wireless customers. For example, the caller's telephone number and approximate location is to be passed to the 911 center. Given the complexity of this issue, it will require close watching and interpretation to laymen's terms. Whether this will include phones not registered to _any_ carrier was not explained. Another issue is what happens if you're near a state border and get a 911 center in a different state -- how will you get transferred to the right location? (Living and working near the Penna-NJ border my cell calls are often shown originating in the state opposite of where I actually am.) ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 14:09:46 +0000 Subject: "Looking into Intranets & the Internet" by Rosen Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKLIIATI.RVW 970803 "Looking into Intranets & the Internet", Anita Rosen, 1997, 0-8144-7948-0, U$27.95 %A Anita Rosen acrosen@best.com %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6 %D 1997 %G 0-8144-7948-0 %I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne %O U$27.95 +1-800-565-5758 fax: 905-430-5020 louisea@McGrawHill.ca %P 199 %T "Looking into Intranets & the Internet" Yet another "business on the Internet" book that recycles business advice and doesn't understand the Internet. Since the subtitle makes it clear that this book is for managers, I will accept that a certain level of technical detail is being abandoned. That being the case, I am at a loss to explain the presence of a table comparing ISO, TCP/IP, DECnet, and other network stack layers. There are also lists of cabling media and speeds, as well as some really bizarre "explanations" of how Internet technologies work. What we don't find are clear overviews of TCP/IP protocols and technologies, or any compelling case for their use. Internet applications are pushed because they exist (true), they are cheap (not, perhaps, the best reason in the world), and they are "user-friendly" (a highly questionable assertion). After three chapters outlining the foregoing, we get down to business. The reader is told to create a business case, design the net, develop the application, market the application, and manage the application. In true business literature fashion, the "how" of all of this is left as an exercise to the reader. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKLIIATI.RVW 970803 rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca virus, book info at http://www.freenet.victoria.bc.ca/techrev/rms.html Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 00:32:35 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Nortel to Deploy "Internet Call Waiting" Nortel to Deploy "Internet Call Waiting" [December 2] Nortel (Northern Telecom) introduced today Internet Call Waiting, a service that enables resident telephone users to receive incoming phone calls while they're connected to the Internet. The service, to be available through telephone companies or Internet Service Providers (ISPs), alerts online users of an incoming phone call via a pop-up message that's displayed on the users' computer screens. The message notifies users of the call as well as providing the name and number of the caller (in areas where caller-ID services are available). Users can then choose to receive the call by clicking on an icon. The Internet connection is then terminated and the call is put through to the recipient. Users can also opt to have the call routed to voice mail or another phone number, have a message played to the caller, or simply ignore the call. Nortel plans on offering an additional option in the future, in which users can choose to accept the call using Voice Over IP technology, thereby eliminating the need to terminate the Internet connection. Internet Call Waiting is activated automatically as soon as the user connects to his or her ISP and opens a Web browser. Nortel reports that the service will begin rolling out through two ISPs in Canada by the end of 1997. ------------------------------ From: aljon@worldnet.att.net (John Stahl) Subject: Bell Atlantic/NYPSC - Strange Bedfellows Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 05:14:42 +0000 The following info is part of the formal announcement regarding a new AC for New York City. The interesting point is the request the NYPSC is making to the FCC for exemption of the current federal rules (last paragraph) as they indicate doing so will help new CLEC's to compete in NYC: "The New York Public Service Commission has adopted an overlay plan to relieve phone number exhaustion in the (NYC) 212 area code for Manhattan, and said it will use overlays to provide code relief in the other four boroughs of New York City when they run out of phone numbers in 1999. The new 646 code for Manhattan is to go into effect 4/1/98. The PSC also ordered implementation of "first-come, first-served" number pooling and permanent number portability in Manhattan by the April 1 code startup date, noting that Bell Atlantic New York has committed itself to meeting the target date. The PSC also said it will petition the FCC for an exemption from the FCC rules requiring use of 11-digit local dialing in order to equalize local competition wherever overlay codes are used. The PSC said number pooling and true number portability in New York City will eliminate the competitive disadvantages that overlays could present to new local exchange providers." John Stahl Aljon Enterprises Telecommunications, Data and Internet Consultants email: aljon@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 23:39:37 -0500 From: Larry Dalton Subject: List of npa/nxx Codes Wanted Where might I find a list of npa/nxx (area code, exchange, city, state) list? Thanks, Larry Dalton ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 02:57:29 -0500 From: Soon Y. Choi Subject: CEME '98 Announcement Conference on Electronic Marketplace and Economics February 16-17, 1998, Austin, Texas Electronic Commerce has become one of the most talked-about topics in the press, but there is still much uncertainty on how the use of computer and networking technologies will impact business organizations and processes, products and government policies in a broader context of the digital economy. Critically lacking is an integrated perspective that offers a clear picture of the technology's effects on the marketplace. CEME '98, co-sponsored by CREC and IBM's Institute for Advanced Commerce, presents a gathering of academic researchers and industry experts in electronic commerce with its unprecedented focus on the electronic marketplace and the role of economic models. Two-day sessions will examine analytic and experimental issues in production, product choice, pricing and payment systems, intermediation and consumption, and broader issues of market competition and monetary policy. The Conference will provide the first opportunity to question and analyze popular electronic commerce paradigms using economics as a unifying theme, and to survey recent developments in electronic commerce technologies in academia and industries. More information about the conference and registration is available at the CREC's website: http://cism.bus.utexas.edu (see EC News). Center for Research in Electronic Commerce, University of Texas at Austin Emails: soon@mail.utexas.edu or abw@uts.cc.utexas.edu Voice: (512) 471-8879 Fax (512) 471-0587 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 23:27:42 From: Greg Monti Subject: Re: New York City's New AC Also an Exchange in Neighboring 201 In article , wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) wrote: > Turns out new nanp 646 for New York City is an exchange in immediately > adjacent 201's 646 exchange in Hackensack NJ. A duplicated exchange code is even closer than that. The proposed area code for the split or overlay of 718 (also in New York City), is 347. A 718-347 exchange currently exists. If the 347 exchange happens to be located in the 718 portion of the split, it will be dialed from within 718 as 347-XXXX. To reach the new 347 code, users in 718 will dial 1-347-NXX-XXXX. From the new 347 code, the exchange will be dialed as 1-718-347-XXXX. This is perfectly legal NANP dialing. If 718/347 turns out to be an overlay, 11-digit dialing will become mandatory for all calls, so they will still be distinguishable: 1-718-347-XXXX vs. 1-347-NXX-XXXX. Also, earlier posters were correct: there is no local calling across the boundary between New York and New Jersey. In Maryland, there is a 240 exchange within 301. And the new overlay code is also 240. Since this is an overlay, 7-digit dialing is not allowed and the two are easily distinguishable: 301-240-XXXX vs. 240-NXX-XXXX. Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~gmonti ------------------------------ From: Larry Finch Subject: Re: New York City's New AC Also an Exchange in Neighboring 201 Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 21:32:27 -0500 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Bob Goudreau wrote: > wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) wrote: >> Turns out new nanp 646 for New York City is an exchange in immediately >> adjacent 201's 646 exchange in Hackensack NJ. I thought the phone >> system wants to avoid using an area code number that is the same as an >> exchange in the new area code or in immediately adjacent area codes. > But that only matters if *local* calls cross that NPA boundary and > can be dialed without a leading "1" (i.e., as ten digits, or even as > just seven digits). I don't think that NY City or northern New Jersey > have any inter-NPA local calls dialable with ten or seven digits. And > anyway, is Hackensack-NYC (or vice versa) even a local call? >> Of course, maybe no number exists like that in the New York City area. >> My brother works for the county government of Bergen County, and >> almost all their office lines are in exchange 646. He wonders how >> many wrong numbers they're gonna get from people forgetting the >> leading "1" when dialing New York's new 646 area code. Also means we >> can't have 1 + 7D dialing for same area code toll calls. > Um, 'scuse me, but are you claiming that your area still allows 1+7D > for intra-NPA toll calls? This dialing plan was supposed to have been > eradicated from the NANP almost three years ago (when NNX-style NPAs > were introduced), in favor of either 7D or 1+10D dialing. New Jersey > apparently accepts both of those forms for any intra-NPA calls (long > distance or local). As I have lived in the Hackensack CO coverage area for 25 years I can answer some of these questions. 1. There are no inter-NPA calls that are dialable with 7 or 10 digits. 2. Hackensack-NYC has been an 11 digit call for at least 25 years. It is an interLATA call and is carried by an IXC (although Bell Atlantic is allowed to carry the call from the NJ side if the caller uses an access code). 3. 1+7D calls have not been supported in the Hackensack CO for at least 25 years. Larry LarryFinch@aol.com LarryFinch@worldnet.att.net larry@prolifics.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #340 ******************************