Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA11334; Thu, 13 May 1999 20:23:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 20:23:14 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199905140023.UAA11334@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #82 TELECOM Digest Thu, 13 May 99 20:23:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 82 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Country Code For Tajikistan (Toby Nixon) Book Review: "Newton's Telecom Dictionary", Harry Newton (Rob Slade) The World's Free Web-Based Fax Service @ Fax4Free.com (Mike Pollock) Vietnam City Codes (Matthew Andrion) Re: Unsolicited FAX Spamming (Richard Shockey) Re: Unsolicited FAX Spamming (Terry Kennedy) Re: Unsolicited FAX Spamming (Jim Youll) Re: Unsolicited FAX Spamming (John David Galt) Re: Mitel SX-200 T1 Compatible? (Bruce Kille) Re: Mitel SX-200 T1 Compatible? (Steve Rowland) Re: Question About T1 Robbed-Bit Protocol (Dan Strich) Re: WirelessNPA/Local Competition (Eric Florack) Re: Facilities-Based Local Exchange Competition (Eric Bohlman) Re: New Billing Charge: Local Number Portability (jbyrn) 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 networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: Toby Nixon Subject: Country Code for Tajikistan Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 14:17:56 -0700 According to ITU Operational Bulletin No. 689 (1 April 1999), Tajikistan initiated use of country code +992 on 25 March 1999 (they will no longer be sharing +7 with Russia and Kazakhstan). Both +992 and +7 are supposed to work through the end of the year. As of today (13 May), AT&T still does not route calls using +992; you have to use +7. I tried talking to the AT&T operator and repair, and neither know anything about +992 or have it in their knowledge base. Does anyone know who I would call or write to ask when AT&T will allow dialing Tajikistan using +992? Thanks. Toby L. Nixon Program Manager, Windows Networking and Embedded Products Group Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond WA 98052 USA +1 425 936-2792 Fax: +1 425 936-7329 Cell: +1 206 790-6377 Text pager: 2067906377@mobile.att.net (150-char maximum) ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 08:10:12 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Newton's Telecom Dictionary", Harry Newton Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKNTTLDC.RVW 990401 "Newton's Telecom Dictionary", Harry Newton, 1999, 1-57820-031-8, U$32.95 %A Harry Newton harry_newton@harrynewton.com www.harrynewton.com %C 12 West 21 Street, New York, NY 10010 %D 1999 %G 1-57820-031-8 %I Flatiron Publishing, Inc. %O U$32.95 212-691-8215 800-LIBRARY fax 212-691-1191 %P 901 p. %T "Newton's Telecom Dictionary, 15th Edition" You have to warm to a book that tells you, presumably in regard to the ever increasing number of terms to cover in this field, "Will it ever stop? No. And it's getting worse. But you should buy this soon-to- be-obsolete book, anyway. We need your money for the 16th." Whatever the faults in Newton's research and writing (and they do exist), you have to say this for him: he's a goer. Now reissued annually (with semi-annual "half editions") the dictionary keeps a currency and range that no other such reference can match. Newton asks for, and can use, help, because this is a massive work. There are lots and lots of telecommunications terms, with a fair preponderance of telephony and internet listings. Computer jargon gets a fair amount of space, with MS-DOS related material getting the lion's share. BOB refers to the late, unlamented, and Microsoft- wishes-it-could-be-forgotten product, although there is now also a reference to "BreakOut Box." "Virus" is in there, and it isn't bad. (On the other hand, it hasn't gotten any better over the last three editions.) Management is remembered with the "Osborne Effect" and "Seagull Manager", and the description of "Digital Cash" is written by someone with a firm grasp of reality. The numeric entries for 1791 through 1999 constitute a quick history of telecommunications. The entry for "Call Waiting" refers to the trouble it may give to modems and mentions both the *70 command and the setting of the S10 register. Then there is telecommunications trivia, such as the part played by radio in the saving of the Eiffel Tower, the contribution of the telephone to the English language, and reflections on the Titanic disaster and telecom-related biographies. (You can even learn some erstwhile English terms.) There are useful tables, even within the text such as the listing of North American Area Codes in both numeric and place order. Newton's serious attempt to include more material related to the Internet is evident, but so is a lack of familiarity with some topics. The usage of the double backslash (\\) and double forward slash (//) in the Universal Naming Convention (UNC) is reversed for NT and UNIX. The storage information for cookies is still applicable only to the Netscape browser. The listings are quite current, including items such as "SATAN" (not quite fairly), "Rimm Job", "cookie" (with the associated controversy) and even "push" (without the controversy). However, a number of recent concerns, such as the "ping of death" and "teardrop attack" are not mentioned. The reader will find some esoteric technical entries, like "Hydrogen Loss" and "Zener Diode". While reviewing the book, I left it at a reception desk for fifteen minutes. That was long enough for the staffer at the desk to inform me, on my return, that the author was a pretty funny guy. Quite true. A number of the definitions are fairly lighthearted, and Newton isn't afraid to throw in subjective comments. A number of listings are *completely* off the wall. What does "Apocalypse, Four Horsemen of" have to do with communications? Or "Apologize", or "FORD" for that matter? Apparently if you are a friend or relative of Newton, there is grave danger that you will end up listed in here. Some of the humorous content does have a closer technical connection, like "Bogon", "Get a Life", and "Psychic ANI". The book is not without flaws. I can still cut eight characters out of the "Fox Message." I was surprised not to see an entry for mailstorm. "Freeware" is listed (and correct), but shareware and public domain share the same confused definition. (Indeed, the definition of "Sysop" confuses freeware and public domain software.) The author still doesn't understand that there is a valid technical use of the term "granularity". (I *am* willing to forgive a lot to a dictionary that gets "Hacker" right, but Newton loses points by misusing the term under the entry for "SATAN.") Send a correction in to Newton and he will make it, but it may take an edition or two. Or three. Or four. While extensive, the work is neither complete nor exhaustive. But then, given the expansion of the field madly off in all directions it could hardly be so. The book could use some discipline, not in excluding the humour, but in including more extensive, or more accurate, definitions in places. Weik's dictionary (cf. BKCMSTDC.RVW) pays more attention to standards bodies, communications engineering, and the influential contributions of the military. Petersen (cf. BKDTTLDC.RVW) has done more careful historical research. Shnier (cf. BKCMPDCT.RVW) is generally better in the computer listings. Still, regardless of shortcomings, this is easily one of the best telecommunications dictionaries available today, and, for breadth of scope, probably *the* best. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997, 1998, 1999 BKNTTLDC.RVW 990401 ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca p1@canada.com It may be my sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others. http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ From: Mike Pollock Subject: The World's Free Web-Based Fax Service @ Fax4Free.com (tm) Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 12:05:50 -0400 If you don't mind banner ads running down the side of your document, you can fax (but not spam) for free! http://www.fax4free.com Mike ------------------------------ From: Matthew Andrion Subject: Vietnam City Codes Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 09:40:01 -0700 Mr. Townson, I really appreciate all the information that on your site. It's by far, the most complete listings of country and city dialing codes I've ever seen. I'm looking for more information on Vietnam city dialing information. Do you know of any other resources I might try? If nothing else, thanks for your time and great web site. Matthew Andrion Matthewa@amrcom.com Data Analyst AmeriCom Communications 916-349-7500 Ext. 370 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for your complimentary remarks on the Telecom Archives city and country code files. While still a good reference, far better ones can be found on the net. I have been 'meaning to' get some updated information there for a long time, and never quite get around to it. Two regular participants here, Linc Madison and someone else whose name escapes me for the moment both have excellent dialing code references at their web sites. I am asking them now if they won't please send you a link so you can review their files as well. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rshockey@ix.netcom.NsSPaM.com (Richard Shockey) Subject: Re: Unsolicited FAX Spamming Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 05:04:52 GMT Organization: Shockey Consulting LLC John R. Covert wrote: > You thought Title 47 of the U.S. code would stop unsolicited FAX spamming, > didn't you? > Well, unfortunately, you were wrong. > I am not sure that I believe that they are power-dialling every number > in the United States from England. On the other hand, they can probably > figure out whether there is a fax machine at the number they call within > about two UK message units, so maybe they are. > What do other readers of the Digest think? See the article below ... complain to OFTEL ... LONDON, ENGLAND, 1999 MAY 5 Oftel, the UK telecommunications regulator, has appointed the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) to set up and run new opt-out schemes to block telesales voice and fax calls. Previously, only voice calls have had a preference service for telesales calls. However, over the last few years, telesale faxes have become a major problem in the UK, since most are sent at off-peak times, meaning that recipients are unable to stop the ads rolling through the fax machine. According to David Edmonds, the head of Oftel, for the first time ever, the public now has the right to protection in their homes from the intrusion of unsolicited faxes and increasing protection from direct marketing phone calls, "Oftel has worked closely with the Department of Trade and Industry and the DMA to ensure that the scheme is now in place," he said. According to Edmonds, companies that breach the regulations could face action from the Data Protection Registrar. "Failure to comply could lead to fines of up to 5,000 pounds," he said. Michael Wills, the DTI's telecommunications minister, said that he was delighted that consumers now have the ability to avoid unwanted direct marketing calls and faxes. "For many, these calls and faxes constitute an irritating invasion of privacy and, for small firms in particular, unwanted faxes can be both costly and delay important business correspondence," he said. UK phone users wanting to register for the phone preference service should call 0845-070-0707. Fax users should call 0845-070-0702. Oftel's Web site is at http://www.oftel.gov.uk . Richard Shockey Shockey Consulting LLC 8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110 St. Louis, MO 63119 Voice 314.918.9020 FAX 314.918.9015 Internet E-Mail/IFAX rshockey@ix.netcom.com eFAX 815.333.1237 ------------------------------ From: Terry Kennedy Subject: Re: Unsolicited FAX Spamming Organization: St. Peter's College, US Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 02:22:14 GMT John R. Covert writes: > I had hoped they were in Massachusetts, because then I would have just > gone down to small claims court and requested the $500 ($1500 if the > court decides that the violation was knowing or willfull) that Title 47 > of the US Code allows. > See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.text.html and note that in > the section for faxes, the award is due even for a single call, with no > need to say "stop" and wait for another call. There's a similar scam operating in New Jersey -- it's a "survey" on gun control, rigged like the "when did you stop beating your wife?" question, with two 900 numbers to call. The "call this number to be removed from our list" number is a UK number, but the "survey" states that it is being run by a New Jersey company. I wonder if that's enough of an in-state presence for a small claims suit. Also, isn't there a requirement that the sender of the FAX (and their number) be clearly identified on the page? That is not the case with these FAXes. Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing terry@spcvxa.spc.edu St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA +1 201 915 9381 (voice) +1 201 435-3662 (FAX) ------------------------------ From: jyoull@hotmail.com (Jim Youll) Subject: Re: Unsolicited FAX Spamming Date: 13 May 1999 02:30:55 GMT John R. Covert wrote: > You thought Title 47 of the U.S. code would stop unsolicited FAX spamming, > didn't you? > Well, unfortunately, you were wrong. > What do other readers of the Digest think? What I think is that I'm preparing to file in local court against both boomerang.com and a company called Sento that does training/certifica- tion for Windows NT. Both are out of state. That's okay. There are processes in place for dealing with situations like that. Both made brilliant statements to me about how "their attorneys had reviewed the law" and "as long as they removed my number when I asked them, they hadn't violated Federal Law." Maybe hearing a judge's interpretation will make it more clear for them. ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society Subject: Re: Unsolicited FAX Spamming Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 01:26:14 GMT Quoth John R. Covert: > But they were in Florida, which made things more difficult. I called > them up, and they told me that the calls were originating from England > in order to be exempt from U.S. law. > I am not sure that I believe that they are power-dialling every number > in the United States from England. On the other hand, they can probably > figure out whether there is a fax machine at the number they call within > about two UK message units, so maybe they are. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that if we can require a mail-order outfit to collect sales tax from customers in any state where it has an office, then we can hold a company liable for making these calls into a country where it has an office. John David Galt ------------------------------ From: Bruce Kille Subject: Re: Mitel SX-200 T1 Compatible? Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 08:19:04 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises mtr001deja@my-dejanews.com wrote in message ... > We have a SX-200 Superswitch which was probably installed around 1982. > Is this switch T1 compatible? Only if you use a channel bank!!! Bruce ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 1999 22:56:10 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com From: rodeocomm@aol.com (Steve Rowland) Subject: Re: Mitel SX-200 T1 Compatible? If the Mitel is a 200A, the only way is via channel banks. If it is a 200D, it needs to be a G1002/3 or higher. If you call any Mitel dealer from in front of the machine, it will take about 15 seconds to decide. Other clues: -if you have a dark brown console=200A -if you have a single disk drive=200D too low a software level -two disk drives=200D probably OK -if two card shelves in single cabinet=200A Good luck. Steve Rowland RODEO Communications rodeocomm@aol.com ------------------------------ From: Dan Strich Subject: Re: Question About T1 Robbed-Bit Protocol Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 17:20:11 -0700 Organization: CTS Network Services Check out: ftp://ftp.t1.org/pub/t1e1/e1.2/dir99/9e120069.pdf wsemenov@my-dejanews.com wrote in message ... > Can anybody help me? Where in I-net I can find specification of wink > robbed-bit T1 signalling protocol? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 23:22:33 -0400 From: Eric Florack Reply-To: eflorack@servtech.com Organization: FREE FILE FARM BBS Subject: Re: WirelessNPA/Local Competition Telecom@LincMad.com.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Wrote to the group; >> The question is who will pay to modify all the existing switchgear, >> tamden routers, and billing centers to accomodate more flexibility >> in number assignments? The newcomers obviously want the baby Bells >> to do it, and the baby Bells obviously don't. I don't think they should. >> Some people argue the Bells, having enjoyed monopoly protection, are >> morally obligated to do so. I don't see it that way at all. While >> the Bells had a monopoly, they also were tightly regulated and they >> didn't get any benefits. > First of all, to say that the Bells got no benefits under the old > monopoly regime is ludicrous. Secondly, don't forget that the Bells > have been at the vanguard of pushing for local service competition, > since that's the only way they can get into the long-distance market. > More particularly, the Bells have been pushing for the cosmetic > appearance of local competition, while dragging their feet on the > reality of it. Linc, I've never spared the rod in our past discussions when I thought you were wrong. In this case, I'd be remiss if I was not equally loud on my praise; you're right on the beam, I think. We know darn well what the Bells are after, here ... and they'll likely get it, too. However, I think you're off just a touch in your longer terms view here: > I agree that the new entrants in the field are pushing to get more > of a free ride than they deserve ... The fact is the new kids are playing their hand so hot because they know they CAN play it that way, for several reasons. It's politically expedient right now for the fed to play up this competition thing... even if it really isn't competition, in reality. The image is all the government is after, I fear. So, the government's prone to giving into such nonsense as is being generated by the newbies. And, the Bells are willing to cut a deal that is better for the new locals to get what they want; Namely, LD. Of course once they get their power back in the LD market, they'll be able to petition the fed to change the ground rules... They've done it before, after all ... Consider that with all the LD income, they'll certainly have the income to support the legal beagles pursuing their cause. > However, the Bells have to accept > a large share of the costs in moving to a non-monopoly business, and > that certainly includes a large share of the costs in revamping the > system of allocating numbers. As I say, I suspect they will, in the end. They'll consider it an investment in their own future from two standpoints;: Future LD customers, and (buyouts and mergers being what they are today in this biz...) future buyouts of the now new LEC's, once they have the money to do so. > I agree. I think that we need to tilt the playing field much more > sharply towards facilities-based competition instead of resellers. How do you propose accomplishing this without leaning toward the established companies? The only people that would find advantage under such a lean is, well, AT&T's cable systems, Time Warner, and established locals, like the Bells, and Frontier-Globular. (Chuckle!) > However, that doesn't change the fact that the Bells have to be a > part of changing the system of allocating numbers. >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ... >> When cable companies began getting the go-ahead to wire towns all >> over the USA several years ago, look how fast they did it, and >> in a usually very inconspicuous way. Within a year or two they >> had even large cities like Chicago virtually wired, with cable >> service available to everyone once the city council approved the >> franchise. PAT] > Not always true. I lived for about two years in San Jose, California, > which has the distinction of being the first city in a metropolitan > area to have cable television. The franchise was awarded in the > late 1960's, IIRC. However, the neighborhood in which I lived, which > had been around since the 1920's, was still not wired when I moved out > in 1987. The cable company in Dallas, Texas, took many years to get > out to the northern part of town, even though that area was much more > affluent than the area of San Jose where I lived. We had similar problems around Rochester though at least in our case it was government holding up the works, in the granting process. ____________________________ ___________________________________ /Eric Florack, SysOp of the /\ / eflorack@servtech.com Or: /\ / FREE FILE FARM BBS / /\ / bignasty@billsfan.net / /\ /716-352-6544 or 352-1629 / \/ / http://www.servtech.com/~eflorack/ \/ /GT Net 041/003 and 041/007 /\ / DEMOCRATS LIE. Any Questions? /\ /___________________________/ / /_________________________________/ / \___________________________\/ \_________________________________\/ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ------------------------------ From: Eric Bohlman Subject: Re: Facilities-Based Local Exchange Competition Organization: Netcom Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 05:27:40 GMT > Pat, the TELECOM Digest Editor, noted: > My point all along with both local and long distance competition has > been that the competitors should have been required to make the same > capital outlay on outside plant which AT&T had to make. They should > have been required to devote the same amount of resources to research > as AT&T put into Bell Laboratories. If I had been the judge, I would > have instructed the competitors to build their network, solicit > subscribers, etc and that the only thing I would do is order the Bell > System to treat the newcomers at 'arms length'; to provide a supply Little problem here. As of the time of the divestiture decree (as opposed to the early days of the Bell system), AT&T's capital outlays on plant, research, etc. had been at least partially funded out of subscriber revenues, not just by raising funds on the capital markets. AT&T got much of those revenues by virtue of being the only game in town as a result of its legal monopoly. Your scenario, in which competitors would have to raise all their funds on the capital markets (since they wouldn't have any subscriber revenues until *after* they made their capital outlays) would essentially have the competitors playing by a different set of rules than the incumbents. This seems to be one of those cases where treating different players *the same* isn't the same thing as treating them *equally*, because it doesn't take into account the difference in advantages that occurred in the past. The issues are actually similar to those in a lot of arguments over affirmative action. "First across the finish line wins" is fair *only* if all the runners started at the same time and from the same place. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Okay, fine. So suppose we change my scenario a little and tell the competitors they can have a decade or so of squatting for free on the incumbant's outside plant and other things, but that after a decade or so of this, they had best be in a position to truly 'compete', and not just resell. Maybe instead of Free Fridays and five-cent Sundays and numerous service charges designed to confuse the telephone consumer we tell the competitors, okay fine: sit in Mother Bell's nest and hide behind her skirts and whatnot for a decade or so, while you develop the financial wherewithal and business maturity to do your own thing. Competitors will be subject to entirely the same rules; their tariffs will be identical to Mother's; all the regulations and grief she gets you will get, and instead of convincing some ignorant telecom manager or member of the telephone-consuming public that yours costs twenty percent less so why pay Mother one hundred percent using billing practices which are highly technical and confusing, the **only thing** you will be able to compete with is to the extent and degree your customer service and response times, etc are better than hers. Both of you will charge ten cents for a telephone conversation, but you will prevail in the end because your customer service reps answer the phone immediatly, your operators do not sass-back or lie to the customers quite as much, and your repair technicians do not insist that the trouble is at the subscriber's premises and make a date for a week from next Tuesday which they then fail to keep. You define the role of the customer as the purpose of your busi- ness rather than as an interupption to it; you build up your cash reserves from the price your customers pay less the wholesale rate you pay Mother and the fees you pay into a common pool with other telcos for back-office functions. Anything Mother can do, you can do. Anything she *has* to do, you *have to do also*. And a decade to the day after you have incorporated or chartered your telephone company, Mother gets to push you out of the nest. At that point, you either survive, or you die. Best have your outside plant, your research laboratories, your lobbyists in Congress, and your drinking buddies at the country club ready to go. And after she does force you to fly on your own or lay on the ground and get eaten by the neighbor's cat, regulators will continue to regulate you both for a short time while watching to see if some sort of incestuous relationship was or still is going on. If the two of you are in bed together at that point, playing magic tricks on your customers, and condescending to them, the regulation will continue unabated, but if the regulators observe at least two of you or preferably three or more in a community truly competing, then regulatory activities in general will cease, and we will let the telephone consumer decide what to do. And in the meantime, do not worry about having a wicked and cruel step-mother. *We* can keep her in line. Do you think THAT would be a fair arrangement? PAT] ------------------------------ From: jbyrn Subject: Re: New Billing Charge: Local Number Portability Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 05:54:05 GMT Paul Robinson wrote in message ... > oldbear@arctos.com (Will Roberts) writes black@csulb.NOSMAP.edu > (Matthew Black) writes: >>> GTE California has started billing this residential customer $0.38 for >>> local number portability. I never requested any such service and am >>> curious if this is some new universal fee. >> Local Number Portability (LNP) is the FCC-mandated ability to keep >> your same telephone number even if you switch Local Exchange >> Carriers. The idea is that no one would leave the incumbent RBOC if >> they had to change to a new phone number. I'd guess that this charge >> is a result of GTE attempting to recover the cost of providing LNP. I'd >> be curious if this is an across-the-board charge on all customers or >> something related to your having taken your phone number to a >> different local telco. It appears to be an across-the-board charge on all customers, as the incumbent LECs try to recover the costs of developing systems to handle LNP as required by the Telecom Act of 1996. Systems, I might add, which are barely adequate for providing customers with the ability to easily change LECs, but which they hope are good enough to gain them entry into the lucrative long distance business. I am also paying an LNP fee on my Southwestern Bell bill. Just the usual procedure of passing on costs to the consumer. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #82 *****************************