Date: 10 Sep 2000 06:15:12 -0400 Message-ID: <20000910101512.24088.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org (Telecom Digest) To: telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org Subject: Telecom Digest V2000 #48 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: c2be62b33264ff01e8e8691c70fb166b Status: RO X-Status: Telecom Digest Sunday, September 10 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 048 In this issue: Re: Bell Atlantic redefines 24x7 service Re: PC based Voice Switches Re: lucent installation CellOne San Francisco and AT&T Wireless Re: Dialing plans New Local/EAS Calling expansions w/in New Orl. Metro Re:CellOne San Francisco and AT&T Wireless Company unresponsive to adding toll-free 866 and 855 Re: lucent installation Verizon won't do "inside moves" Re: Verizon won't do "inside moves" Re: Verizon won't do "inside moves" Re: Verizon won't do "inside moves" USWest changing LD carrier without user's knowledge! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Sep 2000 11:19:14 -0400 From: briroy@gcfn.org (Brian C Roy) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic redefines 24x7 service Dave Garland (dave.garland@wizinfo.com) wrote: : It was a dark and stormy night when "Adam H. Kerman" : wrote: : >I disagree that it's a 911 call, though, as it isn't an immediate threat to : >life. If possible, I'd call Public Works. If after hours, I'd call the police : >non-emergency number. : 911 policies vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Around here : (Minneapolis), you call 911 for any situation where the cops may need : to dispatch a car, not just "emergencies". So here, if the wire could : be considered to be a traffic hazard, 911 would be the right call. : -Dave In this area (Columbus OH) The fire department is the primary responder to 'wires down' incidents. We'll come out, assess the hazard, and secure the scene and wait for the power company. Our dispatcher has the 'secret' numbers at the utilities, and presumably the cable companies, and I have yet to hear back from them that they can't get an answer/can't get through, even at the most busy times. The electric company dispatcher will prioritize calls based on the hazard. Please call 911, that's what it's there for. If you call the police non-emergency line on a busy night, they may not even answer it (!) ( personal experience on that one- I gave up after 20+ rings). I seem to remember reading here Pat relating being told to call 911 in the Chicagoland area to get someone to take a report on something- he had called his local police station.Public works won't touch someone else's lines, and it's the PD's responsibility to divert traffic. It should go without saying to not touch/approach any downed wire, and to stay at LEAST one pole away from any damaged/broken power pole. That downed cable TV line could be laying on someone's service drop 2 doors down, and you could get a 220 volt surprise from it. Brian Roy firefighter,paramedic,etc. briroy@gcfn.org - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 2000 12:19:19 -0400 From: "Nortec" Subject: Re: PC based Voice Switches I've seen a few of these PC PBX's and, while they have a few slick features, have steered away from them. Having to have a PC, everywhere there is a phone would be a major pain in the A$$! I would not want a phone system that makes me wait to boot my PC to use the phone (Are you going to put PC's in all your conference rooms, lobby areas, warehouses, etc.?) What if you are at someone else's desk and want to use the phone? (Do you know everybody's password to log into their PC's?). I'd go with a Nortel Norstar or the Lucent Magix. Dependable products with no need to have a PC to control the phone, no signaling codes to remember, digital phones for better sound quality. And the most important part - good support. "Peter R Cook" wrote in message news:X2DCLLAGeUu5Ewt+@wisty.demon.co.uk... > I am in the process of selecting the voice solution for a new small > office - initially 20 staff - expansion to 60 plus conference rooms, > reception etc. etc. etc. Trunking is ISDN-PRI > > The decision boils down to a traditional switch (Probably a Lucent > Index) or one of the new "soft" PBX's based on a W2k PC server with > voice processing cards (Artisoft's Televantage with Dialogic cards?). > The costs are about the same once like for like facilities (operator > console, voice mail etc.) are factored in. > > The main arguments in favour of the soft PBX are the very flexible and > intuitive interface presented to users on their desktop PC, coupled with > the ability to use cheap POTS analogue handsets (just to speak into!) > This contrasts well with the "traditional" system that needs relatively > expensive digital handsets to provide a decent human interface without > long voice prompted menu systems. > > The downside of the "soft" PBX is (I suspect and am being told by the > switch provider!) reliability and failure mode operations. A traditional > switch is designed for reliability, failure management and has lower > power consumption - hence longer power fail life than is possible (at a > sensible cost) than a PC server based switch can currently achieve. > > Have any of the list members any experiences (bad or good) of the new > generation of soft PBX's, and any comments on the choice I am trying to > make. > > > Regards > -- > Peter R Cook > -- > 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: 9 Sep 2000 13:32:47 -0400 From: Peter R Cook Subject: Re: lucent installation In article <20000908212344.14326.00000183@ng-cq1.aol.com>, JCDWEAVER writes >not sure if anyone would know anything about this,but I heard a rumor about >lucent selling off their installation and or their manufacturing in all or >part.any info? >-- >The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail >messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. I saw a lucent sales support person the other day who said that they were spinning off the piece of the company that deals with the corporate business into a separate unit (and floating it?). That seemed to be the PBX, handset, systems installations business. It sounded like a complete vertical unit. She used the new name on the presentation slides - but I can't remember what it was (an a and an x come to mind!) The central office switches etc. and the carriers business stays as Lucent. This may be what you have heard. regards - -- Peter R Cook - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 2000 16:53:50 -0400 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: CellOne San Francisco and AT&T Wireless Hello folks, Does anyone happen to know what the current scoop is as far as CellOne/San Francisco and AT&T Wireless? It looks to the untrained observer as though the latter is in the process of absorbing the former, but they seem to be rather careful at not saying it outright (AT&T Digital OneRate plan is called "Cellular One USA Plan"; checking the AT&T Wireless site for anything in these zipcodes tells you to go look at the www.cellone-sf.com instead, etc.) Personally, I think it would be nice if Cellular One turned into AT&T Wireless lock, stock, and barrel. I haven't been too thrilled will Cellular One in the past; unfortunately, all the cellphone carriers in this area seem to suck, although in slightly different ways. -hpa - -- at work, in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 2000 16:57:53 -0400 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: Dialing plans Followup to: <8pchfg$opq$1@xuxa.iecc.com> By author: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) In newsgroup: comp.dcom.telecom > > > The prefix for international calls is 00 in most of the world. I > > wonder if we'll ever conform to the standard. > > It's very unlikely. North America uses fixed length numbers and "en > bloc" signalling, most other places use variable length numbers and > "compelled" signalling. Computerized switching has pretty much wiped > out the technical advantages of one over the other, but the cost of > switching would be enormous. > > I occasionally hear the argument that 00, compelled signalling, > etc. are international standards, implying that the US and Canada are > telephonic rogue states. The reality is that the US phone system grew > with a single dominant non-governmental phone company, AT&T, which > developed its standards for use in the US, and anywhere else that > wanted to use them, Canada and parts of the Caribbean. In Europe, the > phones were run by each country's mutually suspicious government owned > post office, so they needed a treaty organization to provide the > political cover for the post offices to talk to each other. They > could perfectly well have used AT&T's system, but for reasons having > more to do with parochial national pride than technical merit, they > invented their own. > John, you've got to be kidding. I think the fixed-length formats and the resulting avalanche of area code changes wouldn't exactly be something to emulate. This is not even counting the fact that a whole bunch of U.S. protocols don't seem to be able to handle anything that involves international numbers. I got a call from a Swedish cell phone the other day (+46-70-XXXXXXX) and my caller ID box displayed it at (467) 0XX-XXXX; obviously missing the fact that this isn't a +1 number, and cutting off the last digit. -hpa - -- at work, in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 2000 16:58:12 -0400 From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: New Local/EAS Calling expansions w/in New Orl. Metro [It took me SEVERAL hours to compose this, because while my 56K dialup connection from home to BellSouth.net was okay/stable, the Telnet to tulane.edu kept dropping on me - maybe twenty times total! :( I hope I don't have any serious/major typo or factual errors or have omitted anything that may be "important"] The Friday 8-Sept-2000 New Orleans "Times-Picayune" didn't seem to have any details on any '504' Relief discussion at Thursday's La.PSC monthly public meeting... and the La.PSC website doesn't have anything "new", either. But the Friday "Picayune" did have an article on expansion of local (EAS?) calling in southeast Louisiana... I don't know if there is going to be "ratecenter/exchange area consolidation" or if it is simply expansions of local (EAS- Extended Area Service) unlimited 'free' calling available to _ALL_ customers! (I wonder how long it will take the DAMN COCOTs to reprogram their phones for new tariffed LOCAL calling, the PBXes to correct their translations, cellular to take away any "toll" if there is toll+airtime for calling some of these points - but cellular/wireless is another thing as well, and any CLECs in the areas expanding --- to all comform and comply!) Presently, there are the following ratecenters and "bare-bones / base" local/EAS calling arrangemnets in southeast Louisiana (New Orleans LATA) along the Miss.River... (The expansions of EAS - if that is only what it is and not 'yet' ratecenter consolidation also applies to the "Northshore" area, and while I can pull up lists of their ratecenters, I don't know offhand what their "bare-bones / base-rate" local/EAS is, without going through the three directories or pulling up the BellSouth tariffs online)... NEW ORLEANS (and vicinity) ratecenter coverage area: - - Orleans Parish, east and west banks of the Miss.R. (except for LAKE CATHERINE ratecenter 504-662, easternmost part of Orleans Parish), - - northern Jefferson Parish, east and west banks of the Miss.R. (except for LAFITTE ratecenter 504-689 on west bank, and KENNER ratecenter east and west banks) - - northern west bank of Plaquemines Parish/Belle Chasse area (but not JESUIT BEND ratecenter 504-656) - - "upper" St.Bernard Parish: Arabi/Chalmette/Mereaux localities (but not the ST.BERNARD ratecenter 504-682 5ESS, nor YSCLOWSKY 504-676 nor DELACROIX 504-684 ratecenters) each of the seven ratecenters listed above all have EAS with New Orleans, but not necessarily with each other... but the ST.BERNARD, YSCLOWSKY, DELACROIX ratecenters all _DO_ have EAS with each other; The ST.BERNARD ratecenter (5ESS) 504-682 also extends further downriver to include a large portion of "rural" east bank of northern Plaquemines Parish - the "Braithwaite" locality... All eight ratecenters listed above - the EAS calling area based with the NEW ORLEANS ratecenter, are what has been chosen to retain the 504 area code in the planned split relief - everything else presently with 504 (New Orleans LATA, S.Osyka LA 504-548 in Jackson MS LATA, Pearlington LA 504-531 in Gulfport/Biloxi MS LATA, "Offshore LA" 504-444 in LATA#999) is to change to the new area code, numerics TBA. The KENNER ratecenter listed above has EAS with the NEW ORLEANS ratecenter, but is _NOT_ (base-rate/bare-bones) EAS'd with any of the other ratecenters that are EAS'd with NEW ORLEANS. The KENNER ratecenter geographically covers the Kenner, Harahan, River Ridge, and "Westgate" localities in Jefferson Parish (east bank), as well as the Waggaman and S.Kenner localities on the west bank of Jeff.Parish. The St.Rose locality (east bank of St.Charles Parish) and Ama LA locality (west bank of St.Charles Parish) - both being the downriver-most parts of St.Charles Parish, bordering the upriver-most parts of Jefferson Parish (Kenner and S.Kenner localities). My understanding is that the KENNER ratecenter / downriver-most parts of St.Charles Parish (St.Rose LA locality on the east bank, Ama LA locaility on the west bank) will also keep 504; The telco industry and (most of) the La. Public Svc.Commission (with the possible exception of 'that chair-woman' who can't command the English language - and makes all kind of 'grandstanding' political bs speeches), realizes that splitting ratecenters 'just to conform' to political boundaries (municipal or parish/county) is COUNTER-productive. (Actually, the PSC even realizes that the OVERLAY is the BEST method, but they are scared of political repercussions if they were to approve an overlay) The KENNER ratecenter also has "base-rate / bare-bones" EAS (local) calling (both directions), with four "River Parishes" ratecenters (and the four "River Parish" area ratecenters are perfectly EAS'd with each other as well): - - NORCO (east bank of St.Charles Parish) (5ESS) 504-764,725 - - LA PLACE (east bank of St.John Parish) (5ESS) 504-651,2,3 - - LULING (west bank of St.Charles Parish - two BellSouth landline central offices traditionally providing service in the Luling Ratecenter: Boutte-5E-remote (off New Orl:Avondale 5E) 504-785,331 and Hahnville-DCO 504-783) - - PARADIS (west bank of St.Charles Parish and possibly a VERY SMALL part of Lafourche Parish) (Stromberg-Digital-Remote off Hahnville Strmbrg-DCO, 504-758) (ALL above prefixes are the "traditional" landline prefixes or prefix ranges, although there can now be cellular/CLEC/etc. new prefixes) The four "River Parish" ratecenters are EAS'd with each other and with the KENNER ratecenter -- KENNER will retain NPA 504, the four others are to change to the new NPA code; TEN-digit local dialing will become mandatory for such local (EAS) calls crossing the NPA-boundary. Another ratecenter on the west bank of St.John Parish, EDGARD 504-497, is local unto itself ONLY; It will have to change to the new NPA though. It is a Stromberg-Digital-Remote, hosted by the Hahnville Stromberg-DCO. ALL of these "River Parishes" ratecenters, INCLUDING EDGARD -- according to the article in today's paper -- will become LOCAL (EAS) with the NEW ORLEANS ratecenter! (I don't know if the ratecenters in St.Bernard Parish, or Lake Catherine, or Lafitte, or Jesuit Bend ratecenters will now all be EAS'd with each other and now with the River Parish area). NOT MENTIONED in the article regarding River Parish area ratecenters was what will happen regarding EAS between the two "Reserve Telephone Comapny" (independent) ratecenters of RESERVE LA and GARYVILLE LA, on the east bank of St.John Parish, right upriver from LaPlace LA (Bell), and right at the border with Ascension Parish / beginning of the Baton Rouge LATA. Reserve Telco is right at the end of the New Orleans LATA, going along River Rd, Airline Hwy (US-61) or I-10, between New Orleans and Baton Rouge. There is also the "lower" (downriver) Plaquemines Parish area of four ratecenters... Three on the westbank (which are EAS'd with each other), and POINTE-A-LA-HACHE ratecenter (504-333, Stromberg-Digital-Remote off Buras-DCO host, PT-A-LA-HACHE is local ONLY UNTIO ITSELF) on the eastbank. The three westbank of (lower/downriver) Plaq.Parish ratecenters, going downriver (NW to SE), all EAS'd with each other, are: - - PORT SULPHUR 504-564 (Stromberg Digital Remote off Buras-DCO host) - - BURAS 504-657 Stromberg-DCO (host to all lower Plaq.Parish remotes, Pt.Sulphur and Venice on the west bank, and Pt-a-la-Hache on the eastbank; Buras was the only 5XB in these parts until ten-years ago) - - VENICE 504-533 (Stromberg Digital Remote off Buras-DCO host) All four of these "lower Plaq.Parish" ratecenters (westbank and eastbank) will need to change to the new NPA code (whatever its numericals will be). The new LOCAL (EAS) calling arrangement will have all four of these ratecenters now EAS'd with NEW ORLEANS. I assume that they will also be EAS'd with "lower/outer St.Bernard Parish" ratecenters of ST.BERNARD, YSCLOWSKY, DELACROIX; I also would guess that they would become EAS'd with JESUIT BEND (northern Plaquemines Parish, east bank), and LAFITTE (Jefferson Parish, west bank, southbound on La.Hwy 45 paralleling/swinging with Bayou Barataria...) I don't know about the Plaquemine Parish ratecenters going EAS with KENNER ratecenter (which could seem likely, though - the Kenner region is part of the congiguous New Orleans Metro area) or LAKE CATHERINE ratecenter. The newspaper article did say that calls between the lower Plaquemines Parish area and the River Parishes area would still be toll (inTRA-LATA). Also, the newspaper article mentioned that the expanded local (EAS) calling is NOT going to affect the plans already agreed upon for the split boundaries of 504 next year. ********* The article also mentioned that the new three-digit NPA code will be made public on Tuesday (12-Sept-2000) ********** As for expansion of EAS on the northshore of Lake Pontchartrain: St.Tammany Parishes' ratecenters will all now become EAS'd with each other. Washington Parishes' ratecenters will all now become EAS'd with each other. There have been several individual pairs of EAS between Wash.Parish ratecenters, and likewise within St.Tammany Parish between some of its ratecenters. But now the "entire" parish for each parish will become perfectly EAS with its ratecenters. The article did say that calls _between_ Washington Parish and St.Tammany Parish will still be "toll". Of course, since political boundaries (Parish/County, municipal, etc) don't always perfectly co-incide with ratecenter/wirecenter bounaries, there will be some borderline customers in one parish but associated with the ratecenter of the adjacent parish. Also, I think that there are some EAS "pairs" of ratecenters, one in Washington Parish, the other in St.Tammany Parish. Pearlington LA 504-531 is on the La.side of the Pearl River dividing LA/MS, is in St.Tammany Parish, but gets its dialtone from Pearlington MS 228-534 (formerly 601-534) remote off Bay St.Louis MS host -- and all associated with the Biloxi/Gulfport MS LATA -- I do _NOT_ think that they will necessarily become part of the St.Tammany Parish-wide EAS, though. Crossroads MS 601-772 in Pearl River County MS, is part of the New Orl. LATA. They get dialtone from the Bogalusa LA 5ESS-remote in Wash.Parish (host is Slidel 5E in St.Tammany Parish). Crossroads MS has EAS with Bogalusa LA ratecenter and possibly some other Wash.Parish ratecenters EAS'd with Bogalusa. I wonder if with the expansion of EAS, will Crossroads MS now becomes part of the Wash.Parish (LA) EAS region? The article also mentioned that calls between the Northshore and New Orleans Metro (Southshore) will continue to be TOLL. That calling is what MANY would like to see become local/EAS/free! For those northshore customers who are subscribing to OPTIONAL enhanced plans (Circle Calling, LOS, or Area Plus) for discount or "free" Parish-wide calling, then with the new EAS plan, the optional extra plan becomes "obsolete". HOWEVER, most northshore (and southshore/New Orl Metro) customers have Circle Calling, LOS, or Area Plus for discounted or "free" calling between the north and south shores, and will probably keep the plan. I'm not all that familiar with "Circle Calling", but I _think_ it is something "comparable" to the old AT&T Reach-Out America plans, where you "purchase" hours or half-hour evening/night/weekend blocks of calling, and using up all those purchased time-blocks is cheaper than the same amount of time billed at "full-tariffed-rates". LOS (Local Optional Service) is a calling area that extends beyond the bare-bones base-EAS calling area, which is something like "Measured Rate" local in other places. In fact, LOS replaced the optional (1980s-era) Local Measured Rate (for calling within your Local/EAS area). LOS has two major bands - the inner band (outside of the base/traditional EAS area) which has a maximum monthly charge-cap - if you make less than that amount, you still pay a "base" fee, but then only for the calls you make, priced no higher than the maximum charge-cap... and the outer band (which may or may not extend to all of the LATA, depending on other geopolitical/wirecenter/ratecenter factors) has no max charge cap - the clock is always ticking, but the per-min rates are WELL BELOW the full tariffed rates. Parish boundaries, and rate/wirecenters for locations outside of your traditional EAS calling area define your LOS inner and outer bands, and how much out into the LATA the outer band could extend. Area Plus - the top-of-the-line - gives you the ENTIRE LATA (for a FIXED extra monthly charge) of unlimited calling per month! regardless of where you are geo-politically situated within the LATA for origination. The newspaper article does NOT mention Tangipahoa Parish calling - on the northshore, nor the "Cajun" parish areas of the New Orleans LATA (all which will go into the new NPA). The "Cajun" areas include Morgan City, Thibodeaux and Houma LA -- and, another independent (which has its own Inward and DA Operators on 504+022+121/131 in LaRose LA) in lower Lafourche Parish - LATELCO (Lafourche Telephone Company). Their wireless subsidiary is called Mobiltel. Latelco territory also extends (landline only) down La#1 to GRAND ISLE ratecenter, a Gulf-of-Mexico barrier island (that might wash away if "the big one" hurricane is to hit), that is actually part of Jefferson Parish. B-side (AMPS) Cellular for Grand Isle is _NOT_ Mobiltel, but BellSouth Mobility (New Orleans MTSO/service area). The newspaper article did mention that this enhancement of EAS was an agreement between the La.PSC and BellSouth/incumbent indeps, regarding a change in the way the state taxes the incumbent Bell/indep telcos in Louisiana. While not mentioned in the article, I do wonder if there is to be enhancements of "base" EAS in other parts of the state as well! This will be the first real enhancement of "base" EAS for the New Orleans Metro area in about 40 years! BTW, with the new NPA to split from 504, there will be increased 10-digit LOCAL/EAS dialing because the split boundary is based on the existing (older) EAS calling area "from/with" New Orleans. There is no "date" for the enhanced EAS indicated other than "next year". The dialing arrangements for the 504/??? split will be: - - "home" NPA local/EAS: seven-digits (I don't know if ten or 1+ten digits will be permissive though; it presently is NOT) - - "adjacent/different" NPA local/EAS: (straight) ten-digits (I don't know if 1+ten-digits will be permissive - it presently is NOT) - - TOLL calls, regardless of NPA, LATA or State: 1+ten-digits, including "home"-NPA toll, where you have to dial your own NPA code. This is already in effect. - - similarly, all 0+ type calls, regardless of local (ie. card/collect/etc coinless from payphones), toll, NPA, LATA or State: 0+ten-digits including 0+ calls home-NPA dialing your own NPA code. This is already in effect. - - LOS customers will have to include the NPA code for a (straight) ten-digit call if the call is across the NPA boundary. "Straight" 7-digit LOS dialing will be maintained for such LOS calls within the "home" NPA as is now. NON-LOS customers will (and presently) dial 1+ten-digits if the same destination for them happens to be "toll", regardless of NPA. - - Area Plus customers will probably have the same dialing plan as LOS customers, but for Area Plus points that are not LOS (the most distant points in the LATA), even though they are "free" (unlimited), the dialing plan presently is _1+_504+seven-digits (or _1+_601-772-xxxx for Crossroads MS). The "requirement" for the _1+_ (and NPA even if same) for Area-Plus customers, even though LATA-wide calling for us is "free/unlimited", is probably due to (or so I've been told) to certain "limitations" on additional "class-of-service" options in translations in the 1AESS. New Orleans still has several #1As, but they are slowly being cut to DMSes and 5ESSes. MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Cl.5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x-) to become a #5ESS (yeah!), NWORLASKDS0, 12:01am SAT-11-NOV-2000 NWORLAIYCM3 (BellSouth-Mobility Ericsson Cellular-MTSO NOL) NWORLAMT01T (BellSouth DMS-100 "Metairie" Tndm; Cellular routes thru) NWORLAMA0GT (BellSouth DMS-100/200 inTRA-LATA/fg.BCD Tndm "Main" 504+) NWORLAMA20T (BellSouth DMS-200 TOPS:inLATA OprSvcTndm "Main" 504+053+) NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll 060-T / 504-2T "Main" 504+) JCSNMSPS06T (AT&T #5ESS OSPS:Operator-Services-Tandem 601-0T 601+121) JCSNMSPS14T (AT&T #4ESS Class-3 Toll 040-T / 601-2T; OSPS routes thru) NWORLAELH01 (PBX NEC-2400 504-862-3/8xxx, 504-865-4/5/6xxx) NWORLACADS0 (BellSo.DMS-100 Cl.5 Lcl "Carrollton" 504-86x-;PBX 'homes' on) ========================================================================= - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 2000 17:29:05 -0400 From: "Andy Berry" Subject: Re:CellOne San Francisco and AT&T Wireless >"H. Peter Anvin" Writes........ >Does anyone happen to know what the current scoop is as far as >CellOne/San Francisco and AT&T Wireless? It looks to the untrained >observer as though the latter is in the process of absorbing the >former, but they seem to be rather careful at not saying it outright >(AT&T Digital OneRate plan is called "Cellular One USA Plan"; checking >the AT&T Wireless site for anything in these zipcodes tells you to go >look at the www.cellone-sf.com instead, etc.) > >Personally, I think it would be nice if Cellular One turned into AT&T >Wireless lock, stock, and barrel. I haven't been too thrilled will >Cellular One in the past; unfortunately, all the cellphone carriers in >this area seem to suck, although in slightly different ways. Its already a done deal. ATT announced plans to buy Verizon's (From Vodaphone/Airtouch) half of C1 SF back in June. It was announced a week or so ago that the deal was complete and to expect full branding by the end of the year. From the conference call back in June, they said to expect to see changes starting as soon as the transaction was complete. BTW, that was the last ATT partnership left that is not ATT branded. Houston Cellular is an ATT partnership w/BellSouth, but will not be next year. Andy B. - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 2000 17:52:10 -0400 From: Joseph Singer Subject: Company unresponsive to adding toll-free 866 and 855 I've been after VoiceStream my mobile phone provider for three weeks now to add 866 and 855 so that I can make calls to those who have toll-free numbers with these SAC prefix. Today when I spoke with a "customer care" person they informed that the reason that I can't make any calls to these numbers is the person's carrier won't let me dial their number. They said that they would not do anything about it as it was "out of their control." How do I convince them that *they* need to add these SACs into their system? Do I have to involve the FCC in this before they will make a move? TIA Joseph - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Singer Seattle, Washington USA [ICQ pgr] +1 206 405 2052 [voice mail] +1 206 493 0706 [FAX] - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 2000 22:49:50 -0400 From: "Bruce Kille" Subject: Re: lucent installation JCDWEAVER wrote in message news:20000908212344.14326.00000183@ng-cq1.aol.com... > not sure if anyone would know anything about this,but I heard a rumor about > lucent selling off their installation and or their manufacturing in all or > part.any info? The small/medium key/PBX division was bought by Exp@nets. Expanets is the result of Northwestern Growth buying about 30 interconnect and data companies and combining them into one entity. Later, Expanets acquired the above mentioned division of Lucent. If you are interested in more information about Expanets check out their web site: www.expanets.com . Bruce - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 2000 00:10:00 -0400 From: "Judith Oppenheimer" Subject: Verizon won't do "inside moves" Long story short, I spoke at length today with Verizon re attempting to move a local phone number from one problematic jack in my home, to a cleaner one that used to house a different, now disconnected phone number. Neither repair nor sales or billing was willing to help - said they don't do "inside moves" or some such thing, although they will move a number from one address to another. I actually had to buy service (a new phone number!) to place on the clean jack, plus $4.50/monthly charge call forwarding on the original local phone number to have calls sent to the new (unnecessary!) number. Who says there's a number shortage?! Verizon has (212) numbers to spare ... (but can anyone tell me why they won't do "inside moves?", something that should take about 3 minutes, I'd think, technically ... ?) Judith Judith Oppenheimer, +1 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert Publisher, http://www.icbtollfree.com/testimny.cfm Register for FREE 800/Dot Com Headlines here: http://www.icbtollfree.com/reg.cfm?NextURL=Index.cfm - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 2000 00:46:49 -0400 From: Dave Garland Subject: Re: Verizon won't do "inside moves" It was a dark and stormy night when "Judith Oppenheimer" wrote: >I actually had to buy service (a new phone number!) to place on the clean jack, >plus $4.50/monthly charge call forwarding on the original local phone number to >have calls sent to the new (unnecessary!) number. I can't tell you why Verizon wouldn't do it. But is there some reason why you/a handyman/an electrician (in ascending order of expense) couldn't just hook the unused run up to the demarc? Indeed, if the unused line and the existing line weren't too old, they probably terminated in the same box, and merely required switching a pair of wires from one set of screws to another. Even hiring an electrician (serious overkill) would pay back pretty quick. - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 2000 01:19:33 -0400 From: "Ed Ellers" Subject: Re: Verizon won't do "inside moves" Dave Garland wrote: "But is there some reason why you/a handyman/an electrician (in ascending order of expense) couldn't just hook the unused run up to the demarc?" I don't think that would help. It sounds as though Judith had two pairs coming into the house, and Verizon was refusing to move her service from one pair to the other. No amount of rearranging inside wiring would fix that. - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 2000 03:03:58 -0400 From: Joel B Levin Subject: Re: Verizon won't do "inside moves" In , "Judith Oppenheimer" wrote: }Long story short, I spoke at length today with Verizon re attempting to move a }local phone number from one problematic jack in my home, to a cleaner one that }used to house a different, now disconnected phone number. } }Neither repair nor sales or billing was willing to help - said they don't do }"inside moves" or some such thing, although they will move a number from one }address to another. This sounds surprising to me. My understanding was that NYNEX / BA was always willing to do such work -- but at some outrageous $/hour, with a minimum charge. This also applies to repairs on your side of the network interface. In fact, if you called it in as a noisy line, if they were to come out and discover the noise source to be your wiring, they would offer to fix it then and there (and they'd be happy to use your other jack) at the hourly rate. If you're in the GTE part of Verizon I have no idea what their policy was, but if it was different (from BA's) before, I'd be pretty confident that it is still different. /JBL - -- Nets: levin/at/bbn.com | I wanna buy a ranch. With horsies. or jbl/at/levin.mv.com | -- Sprint PCS commercial or levinjb/at/gte.net | ARS: KD1ON | http://home1.gte.net/levinjb/ - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 2000 03:12:01 -0400 From: craigm@earthling.net (Craig Macbride) Subject: USWest changing LD carrier without user's knowledge! I have a friend who lives in Washington state and has just made the unpleasant discovery that USWest (now QWest) changed her long distance carrier on one of her two phone lines without her knowledge or consent. This was done late last year. It was only when she made a long overseas call recently that she discovered that it was billed to AT&T (over US$200), instead of the carrier she had chosen, which would have charged about US$20. She has a calling card with AT&T and gets billed directly by them. When she contacted her preferred carrier, they told her USWest had instructed them last December that their service was no longer required! Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to get USWest to pay the US$200 they are responsible for? Any ideas why USWest might have changed a customer's long distance carrier without their knowledge? Surely this behaviour should be illegal? - -- Craig Macbride - -----------------------http://www.nyx.net/~cmacbrid------------------------ "It's a sense of humour like mine, Carla, that makes me proud to be ashamed of myself." - Captain Kremmen - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ End of Telecom Digest V2000 #48 *******************************