Date: 2 Sep 2000 06:15:09 -0400 Message-ID: <20000902101509.20315.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org (Telecom Digest) To: telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org Subject: Telecom Digest V2000 #41 Reply-To: editor@telecom-digest.org Sender: owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org Errors-To: owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org Precedence: bulk X-UIDL: 761711800502c240f5cb3f3812a726ec Status: RO X-Status: Telecom Digest Saturday, September 2 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 041 In this issue: Re: What does it take to be a CLEC? Re: What does it take to be a CLEC? Re: 2600 (was Re: CWA Operating verizonREALLYsucks Web Site) Re: 2600 (was Re: CWA Operating verizonREALLYsucks Web Site) Caller ID and answer supervision? Re: Caller ID and answer supervision? Re: 2600 (was Re: CWA Operating verizonREALLYsucks Web Site) Re: Caller ID and answer supervision? Re: 2600 (was Re: CWA Operating verizonREALLYsucks Web Site) Re: Caller ID and answer supervision? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Sep 2000 09:10:45 -0400 From: Fred Goldstein Subject: Re: What does it take to be a CLEC? In V2000 #40, Roy Smith asks, >I was a little amazed a 30 person company could be a CLEC. What exactly >does it involve? Just file some paperwork with the FCC and hang out a >shingle? I've seen CLECs operate with many fewer than that! Quite effectively, too. A "CLEC" can be lots of different things -- unlike an ILEC, which attempts to be all things to all people under its historical monopoly, a CLEC can focus on certain services, like DSL or PRI. And a CLEC (like some ILECs, actually) can outsource many of its functions. Switch vendors will install their equipment, and third-party network operations, billing, first-level customer service, engineering and installation services are available. So the CLEC may only have 30 people of its own, but can operate quite effectively, acting more as a systems integrator. - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 2000 10:41:33 -0400 From: "Bryan Bethea" Subject: Re: What does it take to be a CLEC? It is a bit more involved than filing paperwork (although it's filed with state regulators, not the FCC). Each state varies it's requirements so no blanket list of qualifications can be given. Check with your state's public utility regulators for more specific information. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy Smith" To: Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 9:13 PM Subject: What does it take to be a CLEC? > I had a visit a few days ago from some guys trying to sell us DSL > service in one of our campus residential buildings. Two interesting > factoids came out of the conversation: 1) they're a CLEC, and 2) the > entire company consists of 30 people. > > I was a little amazed a 30 person company could be a CLEC. What exactly > does it involve? Just file some paperwork with the FCC and hang out a > shingle? > -- > The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail > messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. > - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 2000 14:27:03 -0400 From: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) Subject: Re: 2600 (was Re: CWA Operating verizonREALLYsucks Web Site) In article , Alan Boritz wrote: >kamlet@infinet.com wrote: > >>In article <3.0.5.32.20000828162446.0087e4c0@oz.net> you write: >>>28 Aug 2000 18:21:34 -0400 jsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steve Sobol) >>>wrote: >>> >>>>>>From 'Joel B Levin': >>>>>In <8oc547$rfo$1@panix5.panix.com>, >>>>> dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein) wrote: >>>>>}danny 'does "2600" have any telco history meaning?' burstein >>>>> >>>>>You're kidding, right? >>>> >>>>I'd like to know its significance, myself. >>> >>>2600 hz is the tone that was used in MF (multifrequency) signalling as part >>>of the connection tone to disconnect a connection. Someone discovered >> >>Someone discovered? The detailed article appeared in the public >>"Bell System Journal" for one and all to read. (As someone corrected, it's the Bell System Technical Journal) >Wow, we're impressed. Really. > >The (now) famous "someone" was an acquaintance of John T. Draper, aka 'captain >crunch,' the grandfather of phone phreakers. This acquaintance had literally >"discovered" it with a toy whistle from Captain Crunch cereal, in 1972 (Draper >never claimed credit for doing that himself). The rest is history. Finding a disconnect tone is a part of the puzzle. Without the combination tones used to redirect the call all you have done is opened the door. The BSTJ article made it all crystal clear. Sort of like the bank putting its cash out on the tables for all to see. Or grab. >>I worked with a fellow at Bell Labs whose job was writing software >>to detect odd patterned calls, such as a call to busy that stayed >>off hook for 20 minutes, and the software flagged those. He got >>to go along on raids of blue box users. The phone company (PNB >>was the first) would get the DA to request an arrest warrant and >>the police would then invite the phone company along to identify >>what a blue box was. (Not all blue boxes were blue :^) After the >>trial, he sometimes got to keep the blue box. > >Don't you think that it would have been a much more efficient use of a >programmer's time to write code for switches to DISCONNECT busy calls, rather >than "buffing" police calls? Remember, CCIS didn't go in until the mid 1970s, and most of the switches were still step by step or crossbar. That's relays, period. And before CCIS, you had only a relatively few 1ESSs scattered around. And the 1ESSs that were around didn't get many programming changes, and certainly not a change to disconnect long busy's. Each memory board -- a memory board was very very large - I seem to remember they were around 2' x 2' or so, but I could be high, and I seem to remember they all had actual core memory so only a very limited amount of word memory per 4 ft sq board. (You remember words, right? Cores? ) And the first 4ESS toll switch, which is really where you might even consider putting such software, didn't come out until 1976 ( I think they timed the date to coincide with the 200th bicentennial celebrations?) So a software solution in what was still an elctromechanical world was not a solution at all. And, perhaps, the police or the phone ocmpany wanted some high profile arrests, not unlike the income tax arrests being made during income tax season? One of the first high profile arrests for blue box use was a TV actor, Bob Cummings. - -- Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 2000 14:27:04 -0400 From: kamlet@infinet.com Subject: Re: 2600 (was Re: CWA Operating verizonREALLYsucks Web Site) In article , Alan Boritz wrote: >kamlet@infinet.com wrote: > >>In article <3.0.5.32.20000828162446.0087e4c0@oz.net> you write: >>>28 Aug 2000 18:21:34 -0400 jsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steve Sobol) >>>wrote: >>> >>>>>>From 'Joel B Levin': >>>>>In <8oc547$rfo$1@panix5.panix.com>, >>>>> dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein) wrote: >>>>>}danny 'does "2600" have any telco history meaning?' burstein >>>>> >>>>>You're kidding, right? >>>> >>>>I'd like to know its significance, myself. >>> >>>2600 hz is the tone that was used in MF (multifrequency) signalling as part >>>of the connection tone to disconnect a connection. Someone discovered >> >>Someone discovered? The detailed article appeared in the public >>"Bell System Journal" for one and all to read. (As someone corrected, it's the Bell System Technical Journal) >Wow, we're impressed. Really. > >The (now) famous "someone" was an acquaintance of John T. Draper, aka 'captain >crunch,' the grandfather of phone phreakers. This acquaintance had literally >"discovered" it with a toy whistle from Captain Crunch cereal, in 1972 (Draper >never claimed credit for doing that himself). The rest is history. Finding a disconnect tone is a part of the puzzle. Without the combination tones used to redirect the call all you have done is opened the door. The BSTJ article made it all crystal clear. Sort of like the bank putting its cash out on the tables for all to see. Or grab. >>I worked with a fellow at Bell Labs whose job was writing software >>to detect odd patterned calls, such as a call to busy that stayed >>off hook for 20 minutes, and the software flagged those. He got >>to go along on raids of blue box users. The phone company (PNB >>was the first) would get the DA to request an arrest warrant and >>the police would then invite the phone company along to identify >>what a blue box was. (Not all blue boxes were blue :^) After the >>trial, he sometimes got to keep the blue box. > >Don't you think that it would have been a much more efficient use of a >programmer's time to write code for switches to DISCONNECT busy calls, rather >than "buffing" police calls? Remember, CCIS didn't go in until the mid 1970s, and most of the switches were still step by step or crossbar. That's relays, period. And before CCIS, you had only a relatively few 1ESSs scattered around. And the 1ESSs that were around didn't get many programming changes, and certainly not a change to disconnect long busy's. Each memory board -- a memory board was very very large - I seem to remember they were around 2' x 2' or so, but I could be high, and I seem to remember they all had actual core memory so only a very limited amount of word memory per 4 ft sq board. (You remember words, right? Cores? ) And the first 4ESS toll switch, which is really where you might even consider putting such software, didn't come out until 1976 ( I think they timed the date to coincide with the 200th bicentennial celebrations?) So a software solution in what was still an elctromechanical world was not a solution at all. And, perhaps, the police or the phone ocmpany wanted some high profile arrests, not unlike the income tax arrests being made during income tax season? One of the first high profile arrests for blue box use was a TV actor, Bob Cummings. - -- Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 2000 15:40:03 -0400 From: richw@webcom.com (Rich Wales) Subject: Caller ID and answer supervision? Can answer supervision be triggered by caller ID, even if no person or answering machine ever picks up the line at the receiving end? My mother (who lives in the San Francisco area) told me yesterday about a problem with her phone bill. She uses a specific "10-10" provider (which will, for the moment at least, remain unidentified to protect the guilty) for most of her long-distance calls. Recently, she tried several times (without success) to reach a cousin in another state. Each time, the phone rang about six times, but no one answered. When her phone bill arrived, she discovered that the "10-10" provider had billed each of these unsuccessful calling attempts as a one-minute call (and charged her about a dollar per call, since the plan is one of those "up to X minutes for only Y cents" deals). When she called the "10-10" provider to complain, the provider insisted the charges were legitimate, even though there had been no answer on any of the calls. The "customer service" (?) person told my mom that perhaps the person she was calling had caller ID -- and that if this were the case, the call would be considered answered on the first ring, regardless of whether a person or answering machine ever picked up the line or not. Not surprisingly, my mom was not satisfied by this answer. She called back the next day and got somebody else. The "customer service" (?) person she got the second time agreed to refund the disputed charges "this time" -- but apparently still stood by the first person's claim that the calls in question were chargeable, even though no one had answered the phone. This all sounds very fishy to me. Any comments? Rich Wales richw@webcom.com http://www.webcom.com/richw/ - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 2000 18:09:53 -0400 From: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) Subject: Re: Caller ID and answer supervision? In article <20000901191536.74002.richw@wyattearp.stanford.edu>, Rich Wales wrote: >Can answer supervision be triggered by caller ID, even if no person >or answering machine ever picks up the line at the receiving end? No, caller id will not provide answer supervision. But who says an IEX has to get answer supervision in order to bill? All they need is the call attempt data, and bingo! you have enough to bill for a minimal call. Add call completion and you can bill for a longer call. - -- Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 2000 21:09:59 -0400 From: haggerty@coralberry.net (Joe) Subject: Re: 2600 (was Re: CWA Operating verizonREALLYsucks Web Site) Radio Shack sold a small cylindrical unit about 1.5" x half-dollar diameter, 9 volt., that produced a "warble" tone at 2500 or so for small alarm systems or such. Not as loud as a home smoke alarm of today, but getting close. It worked very well as a source of the required 2600 Hz idle circuit tone. plenty loud enough. using audio also had the advantage of no physical connection to a phone wire/line, just hold the receiver near the speaker of the "blue box". - -- Joe - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 2000 02:33:31 -0400 From: quonk@my-deja.com Subject: Re: Caller ID and answer supervision? In article <20000901191536.74002.richw@wyattearp.stanford.edu>, [snip] > When she called the "10-10" provider to complain, the provider insisted > the charges were legitimate, even though there had been no answer on > any of the calls. The "customer service" (?) person told my mom that > perhaps the person she was calling had caller ID -- and that if this > were the case, the call would be considered answered on the first ring, > regardless of whether a person or answering machine ever picked up the > line or not. > > Not surprisingly, my mom was not satisfied by this answer. She called > back the next day and got somebody else. The "customer service" (?) > person she got the second time agreed to refund the disputed charges > "this time" -- but apparently still stood by the first person's claim > that the calls in question were chargeable, even though no one had > answered the phone. > > This all sounds very fishy to me. Any comments? > This is very interesting. In another newsgroup where I used to lurk several months ago, a person reported that while he was on an extended vacation, he was charged $6.18 per call for several dozen on minute calling card calls. He protested that the rate was exhorbitant and that most of the calls were unanswered. He claimed to be calling his home where there is no answering machine or any other special arrangement and all of the unanswered calls were charged as one minute calls. He was using the major long distance company that is bigger than the company you were most likely refering to. Well, it turns out that $6.18 is indeed the proper charge for a one minute US interstate call using an LEC calling card from a payphone on this long distance company. The customer service rep asked him if he had caller id. He said yes, at which point they explained to him the same theory about billing starting when caller id is sent. However, this company refused to offer any credit or compromise on the charges at all. What I'm thinking here is that CS reps must no longer be required to receive any training whatsoever in the basics of the business. They must be thrown out into the jungles in a sort of "Lord of the Flies" fashion and left to try to make sense of what is going on themselves and make up their own theories of how the system works, leading to their own mythology. It is just too eerie how the CS reps at two different companies have made up the same story. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 2000 04:21:39 -0400 From: Terry Kennedy Subject: Re: 2600 (was Re: CWA Operating verizonREALLYsucks Web Site) Art Kamlet writes: > So a software solution in what was still an elctromechanical world > was not a solution at all. The TT translators on the XBAR switches could be optioned to detect 2600 and alarm. Steppers in my area never supported tone, and the trunks out of the steppers didn't use MF, so there was no need to guard them there if something was listening further down the line. Terry Kennedy http://www.tmk.com terry@tmk.com Jersey City, NJ USA - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 2000 06:02:38 -0400 From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Caller ID and answer supervision? richw@webcom.com (Rich Wales) writes: > Can answer supervision be triggered by caller ID, even if no person > or answering machine ever picks up the line at the receiving end? No. > My mother (who lives in the San Francisco area) told me yesterday > about a problem with her phone bill. She uses a specific "10-10" > provider (which will, for the moment at least, remain unidentified > to protect the guilty) for most of her long-distance calls. > > Recently, she tried several times (without success) to reach a cousin > in another state. Each time, the phone rang about six times, but no > one answered. When her phone bill arrived, she discovered that the > "10-10" provider had billed each of these unsuccessful calling attempts > as a one-minute call (and charged her about a dollar per call, since > the plan is one of those "up to X minutes for only Y cents" deals). > > When she called the "10-10" provider to complain, the provider insisted > the charges were legitimate, even though there had been no answer on > any of the calls. The "customer service" (?) person told my mom that > perhaps the person she was calling had caller ID -- and that if this > were the case, the call would be considered answered on the first ring, > regardless of whether a person or answering machine ever picked up the > line or not. > > Not surprisingly, my mom was not satisfied by this answer. She called > back the next day and got somebody else. The "customer service" (?) > person she got the second time agreed to refund the disputed charges > "this time" -- but apparently still stood by the first person's claim > that the calls in question were chargeable, even though no one had > answered the phone. > > This all sounds very fishy to me. Any comments? The company is likely not *using* supervision. Instead, they charge as soon as the call has lasted for more than some number of seconds (30, 45 or 60). A lot of the sleazier outfits have pulled this stunt for *years*. - -- Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ End of Telecom Digest V2000 #41 *******************************