Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA23665; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 20:45:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 20:45:11 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199904250045.UAA23665@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #56 TELECOM Digest Sat, 24 Apr 99 20:45:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 56 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Local Calls Being Billed as Intra-LATA Through IXC (rugeeky2) Re: Local Calls Being Billed as Intra-LATA Through IXC (Eli Mantel) Re: Local Calls Being Billed as Intra-LATA Through IXC (Thor L. Simon) Re: Who Invented the Telephone? (Marone Giuseppe) Re: The NANP Has 8+ Years to Go Says NANPA (Jeffrey J. Carpenter) Broadband Access Conference (Bob Larribeau) Re: Sprint PCS Loses Too ... (Ed Kummel) Re: Cell Phones Not to be Used in Moving Vehicles in Brooklyn,OH (E Kummel) Re: European-Wide Country Code of +388: How Implemented, if So? (D McMahon) Re: Lawsuit Says MCI 'Redlines' (John David Galt) Re: Lawsuit Says MCI 'Redlines' (Lisa Hancock) 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: "rugeeky2?" Subject: Re: Local Calls Being Billed as Intra-LATA Through IXC Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 17:21:34 -0400 Organization: up.net The Michigan Public Service Commission just recently fined Century Telephone for what would appear to be a similar problem. Customer was dialing an ISP in an exchange that was supposedly (I say that because I don't know the details) a local call per tariff. Century charged Intralata toll rates. Customer filed complaint, Century ordered to pay fine. You might want to check the particulars on the MPSC web site. I'm pretty sure the order's posted in the Communications division, and easily found with a web search. Cheers! Joe ------------------------------ From: Eli Mantel Subject: Re: Local Calls Being Billed as Intra-LATA Through IXC Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 07:21:56 GMT Bill Levant wrote: > Anyone else having this problem lately? When I called WorldCom > to have the calls taken off the bill, they talked to me like I > was nutz. It does sound like you're nutz, but Worldcom has encountered this problem before. Your situation appears to be identical to the one I've posted on my web page at http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/5395/pacbell2.html In short, you are right that the problem is caused by some erroneous tables. But getting your bill fixed is another issue. I would suggest telling your local phone company that you're disputing the Worldcom portion of the bill and notifying Worldcom in writing that, although you made the calls in question, your computer was not set up to dial the Worldcom carrier access code and you were not PIC'd to Worldcom for intralata calls, that their charges are invalid, and that you demand that they credit your account for the amount in dispute. Perhaps someone else has a better suggestion. Eli Mantel ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Local Calls Being Billed as Intra-LATA Through IXC Date: 24 Apr 1999 16:38:08 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , Bill Levant wrote: > Calls from my home (610)275-xxxx to AOL's new local numbers > (610)234-0528 and (610)233-0511 are now being billed on my IXC's > invoice as INTRA-LATA calls ! > (610)275 and (610)233 have the same "name-place", and are therefore > presumptively local calls; (610)234 is one town over, in a name-place > that is ALSO local from here. > (610)233 and (610)234 are provided by CLEC's. > I assume that someone at Bell screwed up the routing tables in the > (610)275 CO switch. > Again. > Interestingly, it only seems to happen if I dial as 10 digits (which > will be REQUIRED here in about three months). > Anyone else having this problem lately? When I called WorldCom to > have the calls taken off the bill, they talked to me like I was nutz. It's not their fault, it's your LEC ("Bell")'s fault. Worldcom can't even tell that there's anything wrong. One time I was billed for thousands of hours of such calls first as LEC intra-LATA and then as AT&T intra-LATA. In AT&T's case, they weren't even selling intra-LATA in that LATA, so I got a bill but when I tried to dispute it they couldn't find the records -- it was a multi-thousand-dollar "lost toll" headache for me and them and pretty much everyone involved. Ultimately, it took a formal complaint to the Illinois Commerce Commission to get everything resolved -- though a quick phone call and an informal complaint did break the logjam and at least get the LEC intra-LATA toll problem fixed, and the money I'd overpaid refunded. The formal complaint was required to get Ameritech to admit responsibility to AT&T so they'd refund me the money _they_ had overbilled ... Ameritech's routing mistake, Ameritech's problem. Not mine. Be sure to write _everything_ down when you interact with your LEC on this issue, particularly refusal to fix the problem or commit to a date by which the problem will be fixed. Then be sure to read or fax your notes to the local regulatory authiry when you contact them to have the matter resolved. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 11:45:41 +0200 From: Marone Giuseppe Subject: Re: Who Invented the Telephone? I could add one further name to the growing list of telephone inventors: Innocenzo Manzetti(Aosta, Italy, 1826-1877). Innocenzo Manzetti was an ingenuous character whose interests ranged from astronomy to hydraulics. He is particularly renowned for his robots playing musical instruments. Reportedly, he started his experiments with the "speaking telegraph" at the age of 18 and the first working prototype of a telephone dates back to ~1850. Although his activity was considered with interest by Meucci himself and it seems that A. G. Bell had payed a visit to his lab, Manzetti didn't patent his invention partly because he lacked financial means and partly because of his shy and humble character. You can find (little!) more at: http://space.tin.it/scienza/macanigg/index.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 17:48:29 -0400 From: Jeffrey J. Carpenter Subject: Re: The NANP Has 8+ Years to go Says NANPA > VERY informative.. they now project total exhaustion between 2006 and > 2012, with their best guess being 2007..... 8 1/2 years to go! NO FCC > action recommended regarding 10-D or 11-D dialing yet. No timetable for > expansion yet. No FCC mandate for implementing expanding dialing > patterns from 3+7 to 4+8 with a deadline for launch. How about deciding > IF 4+8 will be the solution? I read the full report this morning. I think the most important point to be taken from it is that number pooling has to be implemented, and it should be implemented as soon as possible. As many carriers as possible must participate including donating blocks from their existing pools of numbers. The FCC needs to step this up and quit letting this issue continue to drag on. The longer this is delayed, the more likely of exhaust at an early date. If it is not implemented, and we exhaust in 2007, we are looking at a problem that could be worse than Y2K in terms of effort needed to convert phone number sizes. Jeffrey J. Carpenter P.O. Box 471 Glenshaw, PA 15116-0471 Phone: +1 500 488-4800 Fax: +1 500 488-4802 Email: jjc@pobox.com Web: http://pobox.com/~jjc/ ------------------------------ From: Bob Larribeau Subject: Broadband Access Conference Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 12:57:11 -0700 Organization: InterNex Information Services 1-800-595-3333 CalBUG, the California Broadband Users' Group, formerly the California ISDN Users' Group, is holding a conference on Broadband Access Technologies that will cover ISDN, DSL, cable modems, and broadband wireless. Keynote speaker will be Reggie Best, VP of Business Products at 3Com. Tuesday June 15 will have 8 tutorials on these 4 technologies, PPP, L2TP, and IPSec. Wednesday June 16 will have the keynote sessions an 6 other sessions on these technologies, Internet options, voice over broadband, and VPNs. The price is $250 for both days or $150 for one day. Audio tapes will be available. Go to http://www.ciug.org or call (800)823-9402 for more information and a registration form. Bob Larribeau Chairman ------------------------------ From: Ed Kummel Subject: Re: Sprint PCS Loses Too ... Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 01:07:37 -0100 Personally, having experience in European GSM (900MHz), US GSM (also known as PCS, 1900MHZ) US digital, both TDMA (AT&T) and CDMA (LEC) and analog, I personally prefer the voice quality of the analog system. The advantage is that it is FULLY deployed throughout the USA (I mean even in remote areas, and the US government has just opened up territories inside national parks for cellular coverage). My main problem with US PCS digital services is the familiar "robot" voice as you leave coverage. Also, the absolute lack of data on some networks (western wireless anyone?) and their incompatibility (Ericsson switches as opposed to Nortel switches) between systems (try roaming with your Nokia 9000! What works in Atlanta, won't work in Oshkosh). It seems that the digital networks that are prevalent (Powertel, Sprint, AT&T, Pactel, Western Wireless) is looking more and more like the way the analog cellular system was 5-8 years ago. (no roaming between carriers, and if so, no calls could be received...we still have the problem of no international dialing on analog systems). But all in all, give me a good ol' analog phone with a modem connection and my Newton 2000 and I'll connect at 14.4 every time (all GSM systems restrict data to 9600...that's if they even offer it! ... ) Well, just my RANT! Ed ------------------------------ From: Ed Kummel Subject: Re: Cell Phones Not to be Used in Moving Vehicles in Brooklyn, Ohio Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 01:48:42 -0100 A simple phrase. Speed dial and hands free! Come on! I want to call a friend, he/she's in the speed dial. Hit the "abc" button and the first letter of their name, then the up/down till I get their name then send. There's a mic near my visor that I talk into. So is a police officer going to pull me over because he sees me talking? How is he to know that I'm on a phone call or just singing to my radio! And while he's looking at me trying to figure out what the heck I'm doing, how's he driving? He certainly isn't looking where HE's going, he's looking at me! Ed ------------------------------ From: denis@pickaxe.demon.co.uk (Denis McMahon) Subject: Re: European-Wide Country Code of +388: How Implemented, if So? Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 01:02:20 GMT Organization: E-Menu Ltd Reply-To: denis@pickaxe.demon.co.uk On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 02:28:42 GMT, Kent K. Steinbrenner wrote: > A few days ago on the U.S. Metric Assn.'s listserv, a list member > asked the following: >> "While, looking up some information on telephone systems worldwide, I came >> across a website on country codes. I know that each country has its own >> telephone code for calls originating outside to reach inside. What was >> interesting, was that the website noted that Europe was (is) suppose to get >> a region wide code beginning in 1999. The code number is +388." There's some info about this at: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8818/wtng-reg.html#Europewide Rgds, Denis McMahon denis@pickaxe.demon.co.uk | All mail from some domains is Mob+44 802 468949 Tel/Fax+44 1705 698221 | deleted due to high UCE levels AXE-10 Engineer / Switch Tech? Join the AXE-10 Technical Mailing List. mailto:denis@pickaxe.demon.co.uk for invite. No Agencies / Advertising. ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Reply-To: jdg@but-i-dont-like-spam.boxmail.com Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society Subject: Re: Lawsuit Says MCI 'Redlines' Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 18:06:41 GMT TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > Telco insists anyone can get a calling card; anyone at all with a > reasonable credit history and a telephone in their name. Therefore, no > discrimination based on the *person*. Its just that no calling card > can be used for international calls when placed from a pay phone in > certain areas of high fraud where telco has no recourse to the caller. > Go to a private dwelling place or a store right next to the same pay > phone and use the phone there, even charging it to the same calling > card which had been denied service from the payphone outside directly > in front on the street if desired. Telco says anyone can bill a call > however they wish, no questions asked, as long as there exists a > physical pair of wires leading to someone who can be held responsible > for the uses made of their instruments, as per tariff. So what's the problem? Someone owns that pay phone. Bill them, and I bet they become more careful where they put pay phones, or simply ban the calling cards themselves. If there's a law that keeps telco from billing them, then that law is the problem. > Maybe it is time for Judge Harold ("I hate AT&T") Greene to come out > of retirement and do something useful for a change. Said the spokes- > person, "maybe he could authorize the write off I was faced with last > year; a couple million dollars in the third quarter is a bit more than > the customer service reps are allowed to write off on their own. > It had to go way above my manager's head before it could be posted." > So who do you sympathize with? I think with some pressure, telcos > could do something about it. Pressure? ... hello ... Judge Greene, are > you reading this? PAT] I would be very surprised if "redlining" wasn't common WAY before the breakup of the Bell System on 1/1/84. John David Galt [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have two responses to make here. Despite the large number of private pay phones -- COCOTS -- seen everywhere these days, the majority of payphones located in totally public places such as street corners, parks, the beach, etc are still 'owned' by telco itself. That is, the 'subscriber' to the service at that location is telco, and the commissions payable go back to telco. Should telco have to sue itself to get its money transferred from one account to another? :) If a payphone is located in a place of business, or a lodging house or similar, it may be 'public' meaning telco does not charge to have it there and in fact pays commissions for it being there (assuming the location is a very good one in telco's opinion) or it may be 'semi-public' meaning the owner of the premises pays a smaller than usual fee for service, with telco collecting and keeping the coins in the box. With 'semi-public' or 'public' telephones, there is no tariff I am aware of which allows telco to hold the entity or person on whose premises the phone is located responsible for abuse. If the phone is a COCOT, then the COCOT owner can be held responsible however any smart person in that business would have his phones set up in the telco central office switch as 'coin service', and he would have an AOS -- alternate operator service -- responding to zero-plus calls, to screen as much fraud as possible. So John, there is not always an 'owner' to be held responsible. My second point regards the history of redlining, and did it exist prior to Judge Greene's reign of terror. Probably it was going on at least a few years, starting in the middle or late seventies. The kindly judge certainly did not create the social conditions in the USA of the past twenty years which caused redlining to be so prevalent. My thinking is it started about the same time that AT&T had its overall general crackdown on toll fraud during that era. Recall please that through the 1950-60 era, some of the most dismal places to be *now* were absolute heavens back then. The west side of Chicago in the Chicago-Kedzie service area was a wonderful place to live. All the major department stores in Chicago including Fields, Carsons, and others had branches on the west side. There were banks, movie theatres, restaurants, grocery stores, hospitals; anything you could want along with very well kept homes and apartments, etc. There was a large Jewish community on the west side of Chicago with several synagogues. Then in the 1960's in rapid succession we had the assasination of President Kennedy, followed by a very rapid escalation of the war in Kosovo -- err, excuse me, Vietnam -- the assasination of M.L. King and three days of hideous rioting all over Chicago with most of the west side totally burned down, more riots in August at the Democratic convention with those west side merchants who had not taken the hint and closed their shops for good the prior April finally deciding to split the scene, and more. Today the west side of Chicago consists of cut-rate liquor stores, '7/Eleven type' convenience food stores with very high prices, and currency exchanges. Of course there is a payphone or two in the parking lot of every cut-rate liquor store, how else would the drug dealers be able transact business? No, Greene did not cause the redlining ... not at all. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Lawsuit Says MCI 'Redlines' Date: 24 Apr 1999 20:21:40 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > And in telco's defense, they insist it is not discrimination *based on > any certain race or nationality of person*, it is discrimination based > on geographic areas. Thus far, geographic areas are not a protected > category as is someone's race. Many court decisions have indeed held that geographic areas ARE a protected category in terms of racial discrimination. Many racial discrimination lawsuits have been successfully won on implied evidence, not actual evidence. Thus, if someone could prove AT&T discriminated against a certain urban neighborhood, and that neighborhood happened to be all black, then AT&T is guilty of racial discrimination. It's irrelevent whether it was crime, lousy business, high costs of doing business, whatever. I sure don't agree with this, but over the years this is what the courts have been deciding. I don't like racial discrimination and want it stopped, but I don't want legitimate forms of business to be curtailed as a result either. In more recent years, the courts have been a little more demanding of actual direct proof of racial discrimination, not just implied proof. (However, look at the recent NBA ruling and the SATs -- they claimed the SATs were racially discriminatory and thus not allowed to be used as a factor in recruitment eligibility.) In Philadelphia, realtors are greatly restricted in the kinds of questions they may answer prospective buyers lest there'd be any inference of racism or racial "steering" in the answer. Actually, when it comes to toll fraud, I don't think the neighborhood is as much of an issue as where the phone happens to be located. Phones in busy locations, unsupervised locations, or places like an airport could be more vulnerable. I would think with today's computers, it'd be easy to identify narrow pockets of fraud vulnerability. For example, if a certain phone in a candy store is often used for fraud attempts, kill service to that phone and phones near it. Easy enough to do. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Does anyone know why card reader type phones never really caught on? I think that type of phone would be most useful in combatting fraud. If the caller had to insert the actual pastic card in the phone -- as one does at a cash machine -- and then punch in a pin as well, that would defeat the people with the binoculars completely wouldn't it, as well as the eavesdroppers. No physical plastic, no call. If you have the plastic, you stil have to know the pin, and three or four random attempts to find out the pin by trial and error would result in the card being cancelled. Look at cash machines: if the machine finds you to be a disagreeable person or suspects you are a charlatan, it just swallows your card and won't give it back at all, telling you to go see your customer service rep at the bank instead if you have something to complain about. You see lots of cash machines in busy public places like airports, and I would think the prospect of walking away with a handful of cash since the smallest denomination given out is usually $5 or $10 and worth more than some lousy phone call to PrimativeTown, ThirdWorld. Why aren't cash machines in those areas victimized by more fraud? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #56 *****************************