Date: 11 Sep 2000 06:15:13 -0400 Message-ID: <20000911101513.11089.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org (Telecom Digest) To: telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org Subject: Telecom Digest V2000 #49 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: f086807177850075de5089a2d65f7879 Status: RO X-Status: Telecom Digest Monday, September 11 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 049 In this issue: Re: USWest changing LD carrier without user's knowledge! Re: Lucent Spinoff Re: Verizon won't do "inside moves" Dialing the US from France Re: USWest changing LD carrier without user's knowledge! Re: billing/answer supervision on recorded announcements Re: Dialing plans RE: USWest changing LD carrier without user's knowledge! Re: Verizon won't do "inside moves" mci problems Re: Lucent Spinoff Re: Lucent Spinoff New turnkey Buisness Models Re: Verizon won't do "inside moves" Re: Dialing the US from France ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Sep 2000 08:29:08 -0400 From: Joseph Singer Subject: Re: USWest changing LD carrier without user's knowledge! 10 Sep 2000 03:12:01 -0400 craigm@earthling.net (Craig Macbride) wrote: >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? You're assuming that Qwest made the switch because they wanted to switch the service from the carrier (which you don't mention) to AT&T. If she was switched to AT&T it may be because either she was slammed or if for some reason she signed something somewhere without her knowledge to AT&T in some sort of promotion for something else. Qwest would have nothing to gain by switching her from one carrier to another as they don't even have permission to offer their own Qwest service in any former USWest area. What happens when she dials 1-700-555-4141? If she gets "Thank you for choosing AT&T." If she was indeed slammed by AT&T they will be fined for doing the switch (slam.) You should be able to get a credit from AT&T for the difference in amount that calls were charged that is different from the carrier you expected. You paid a high rate in most probability because you paid regular tarriffed rates which can be sky high. Also, you and anyone with telephone service should see to it that you get a PIC (preferred interstate carrier) freeze placed on all your lines so that only you can initiate a change in carrier. 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: 10 Sep 2000 10:11:30 -0400 From: HALinNY77@aol.com Subject: Re: Lucent Spinoff In a message dated 09/10/00 06:18:29 Eastern Daylight Time, owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org writes: > 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!) I heard the name of the new entity is Loose Ends :) Hal Kaplan Orion Telecommunications Corp. - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 2000 11:01:14 -0400 From: Dave Garland Subject: Re: Verizon won't do "inside moves" It was a dark and stormy night when "Ed Ellers" wrote: > 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. I thought she was saying that the problem was with the inside wiring, but reading her post your way does make more sense. - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 2000 11:08:38 -0400 From: "earle robinson" Subject: Dialing the US from France France uses 00 to dial all international calls. So, to dial the usa one dials 00-1-xxx-yyy-zzzz. If one lives here the cost through alternate carriers is quite low. I pay 8 cents a minute myself. -er - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 2000 12:30:08 -0400 From: stevenl11@aol.com (Steven Lichter) Subject: Re: USWest changing LD carrier without user's knowledge! > >You're assuming that Qwest made the switch because they wanted to switch >the service from the carrier (which you don't mention) to AT&T. If she >was >switched to AT&T it may be because either she was slammed or if for some >reason she signed something somewhere wit Not that I like AT&T, I don't, but they were slammed from AT&T to an un-named carrier!!!! Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE, support for the Apple II and Macintosh 24 hours 2400/14.4. An OggNet Server. http://www.delphi.com/gbbs The only good spammer is a dead one, have you hunted one down today? (c) - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 2000 12:35:02 -0400 From: "Dean Forrest Wright" Subject: Re: billing/answer supervision on recorded announcements Paraphrasing from the manufacturer's documentation for one of the dominant central office announcement machines: To meet regulatory requirements, answer supervision MUST be provided on ANY announcement which allows the caller to interact with the announcement. For example, any announcement which allows the caller to select by voice or DTMF Tone from a menu or enter information should return answer supervision. Included would be an announcement which allows the caller to select a succeeding announcement from a menu, or an announcement which allows the caller to change his/her call forwarding remotely (Remote Access Call Forwarding). As Mr. Cuccia states, certain announcements not normally reached by end-users may intentionally be set up to provide answer supervision, for testing/study purposes. BTW, RBOC Qwest (formerly U.S. West) provides a toll-free number for its Remote Access Call Forwarding customers to reach the interactive announcement for the service. - -- Dean Forrest Wright, P.E. Wright Engineers, P.C. Telecommunications (Central Office Equipment) Engineer dean imt net - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------------- "When one lacks a sense of awe, there will be disaster" Date: 2 Sep 2000 15:44:45 -0400 From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: re - billing/answer supervision... danny burstein wrote: > Mark J Cuccia writes: >> BTW, GTE has SUPED on some NPA-change messages where the NPA has >> changed in their terminating territory (AT&T, MCI, and Sprint play >> their own NPA-change messages, but the LECs play their own in their >> own LATA territory as well, and for the Qwests, Frontiers, etc. who >> have a long-haul network but don't play their own NPA-change messages. >> And many LECs here and there have been KNOWN to SUPE on intercepts, >> vacant code messages, re-orders, busies, etc. It isn't "rare", but it >> isn't as widespread as I might be describing here... (Ameritech is also known to frequently "supe" on vacants, re-orders, intercepts, etc) > Which brings up a question I'd love to know the answer to, namely: > > what types of "answers" are supposed to be "unsupervised"? > > Presumably there's some list somewhere which, while perhaps not > perfect, should give some guidance. > > For example, we're probably all in agreement that true "busy" signals > shouldn't generate a charge. > > Similarly, a telco intercept advising you of an area code split should > be a freebie. I'd go as far as have _ALL_ vacant code/number, all ccts busy, number changes, no such number, etc. recordings as NON-suping (non-billing). > But going down the list, we start getting into grey areas. > > For example, if you misdial a number in a paging company (let's say 800 > of the 1000 numbers are in use, but you hit one of the blank ones) and > you get an intercept saying 'you've reached a nonworking number at > everlost-paging, our main number is foo-xxx'. Should that be charged? I'd make it "free" non-suping. The wording on the announcement is up to the paging company -- maybe they could give a "cold" vacant type of recording -- even a "re-order" (fast busy)... > Or 'no such number here at the White House, please call our > switchboard'? PBXes, cellular/wireless companies, etc. are all able (and should be encouraged) to return non-suping "vacant" or "intercept" announcements, IMO. Area Code "test/validation" announcement numbers (as indicated in TRA, NANPA, and LEC/etc. documentation have frequently indicated the test number as "free", but many NPA-test/validation numbers have been known to "supe" - about half of the new NPAs in the Caribbean had "suping" test numbers, but they aren't the only ones who have "suped" them. Maybe there should be a "pair" of NPA test numbers for every LATA/tandem region to use that new NPA -- one that is "free" (non-suping) to simply check routings/translations, and another that "supes" if someone wants to check their billing equipment or if they are going to get properly billed/etc. when that new area code gets "real" customers on it. When 250 split from 604 in BC back in 1996, there was a "pair" of test numbers - consecutive TOO -- line-number -0123 was NON-billing, while - - -0124 returned supervision for billing. The actual announcement on each number was IDENTICAL, probably coming from the same machine too! Note -- for those who aren't aware, AT&T (and possibly others) certainly do _BLOCK_ forward voicepath on their networks until the distant end returns off-hook billing/answer supervision. If one of the few remaining live "intercept operators" comes on a line asking "special operator, what number have you dialed", and you placed that call over AT&T, since she won't "supe back" to you, AT&T still has forward voicepath blocked, and she won't be able to hear you. AT&T started doing this twenty-plus years ago in the AT&T Long-Lines parts of the network, to reduce fraudulent use of their network. If you ask an AT&T Operator to call a number where you get a live intercept operator, the AT&T Opr can "RING FORWARD" to open up forward voicepath, yet you still haven't received backwards supervision -- nor billing for the call! Of course, the AT&T Operator will probably want to place a call for you at _OPERATOR_HANDLED_Rates_ to the (potential) "new" number quoted by the distant LEC intercept operator. As for reaching "tests", "announcements" (vacants, intercepts, etc), busies, etc. from a PBX or Cellular (or CLEC), while it isn't "that" difficult to arrange such terminations as NON-suping-back, with all of the competition/confusion in the industry today, many might not know "how" to fix their MTSO, PBX, etc. so that such terminating special numbers do not return back supervision.... Oh - and for network/switching/routing tests (not NPA tests), some are set deliberately to "supe" to do billing/rating studies, etc. Other test line numbers can be specifically set NOT to supe! MJC - - -- - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 2000 12:41:27 -0400 From: Steve Tihor Subject: Re: Dialing plans Its rather deeper than that. I was speaking witha Lucnet repreresetnative and our phone people who run a respectable little lucent switch and they can't even tell me how an internation call will appear internally much less how its displayed on the smart phone displays. - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 2000 14:15:50 -0400 From: Bill Leidy Subject: RE: USWest changing LD carrier without user's knowledge! If my understanding is correct, you have misplaced the responsibility here. As a local exchange carrier (LEC), USWest is obligated to accept LOA's (Letters of Authorization) from Long Distance Companies to switch your service. In short, if AT&T told USWest to switch your service, they are obligated to do so. If AT&T did this without your knowledge and approval, AT&T acted fraudulently (this is called "slamming"), and is subject to fines and penalties. USWest is obligated to change your service back to your preferred carrier at no charge to you, and you are not obligated to pay AT&T for any of the calls made over their service. I, too have been slammed. In my case, I was changed without my permission from AT&T to another carrier that turned out to be an AT&T reseller! My first clue was when I received a bill from my "new" carrier. I examined my previous phone bills and found that my LEC, Southwestern Bell, had charged me two months previously for changing my carrier (not only to they slam you, but you normally pay the LEC for the change!). I contacted Southwestern Bell, and they immediately (1) changed my service back to AT&T at no charge to me, and (2) credited my account back for the unauthorized change billed two months ago. This was done without any arguement whatsoever. I also made one call to carrier now billing me, and informed them that I had not authorized the change, and would not pay for the calls. Many LECs now offer an "LOA block" service. This puts a flag on your account that says not to accept carrier change authorizations from anyone other than the customer themselves. If they offer this, you have to specifically order it. Your friend should ask USWest (now QWest). Bill Leidy - -----Original Message----- From: owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org [mailto:owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org] Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2000 5:15 AM To: telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org Subject: Telecom Digest V2000 #48 Telecom Digest Sunday, September 10 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 048 - ------------------------------ 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 ******************************* - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 2000 14:18:58 -0400 From: Art Rice Subject: Re: Verizon won't do "inside moves" On 10 Sep 2000 00:46:49 -0400, in comp.dcom.telecom you wrote: >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. Quite possibly you are NOT paying extra for Verizon to maintain the inside wiring. They won't touch anything past the demarc if you don't. Should have had the local handyman do the job for you. If Verizon had come out it probably would have been $80/hr payable in 15 min increments as it is down here in Florida, IIRC. - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 2000 14:56:01 -0400 From: mikegackst@aol.com (Mikegackst) Subject: mci problems I have a customer that has 6 pri and 2 t-1 configureation, being provided by MCI. They were saying that the circuits are working fine and their construction of the rollovers to the different channels of the t-1 and pri were fine. I have spent more evenings at the call center monitoring the circuits and operations of the equipment than I care to mention. Only to determine the problem of drop calls and call not dialing out to be MCI. I have talked to repair techs, engineers and sales reps. (bs artists), repeating the same senareal, of how when the circuits get busy, @1500 to 2500 calls an hour, the circuits start acting up. As a call center, the customer lives and dies by the phone. MCI give a good appearance of caring for the first month. Afterwards, it's to stonewall our requests for answer to the questions of what is going on with the circuits. MCI swears, that all circuits are separated from each other. however, when one pri bulches, all of the pri's get gas. The t-1's are the same way, like twins. one gets a cold they all get a cold. Has anyone else have the same type of response and service from MCI as I????!!@$##. - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 2000 16:26:10 -0400 From: rodeocomm@aol.com (Rodeocomm) Subject: Re: Lucent Spinoff The name of the spinoff is AVAYA COMMUNICATION. There is a big ad campaign due out any day, explaining what goes with the new company and what stays with the old name. Steve Rowland RODEO Communications - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 2000 17:12:40 -0400 From: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) Subject: Re: Lucent Spinoff In article , wrote: >In a message dated 09/10/00 06:18:29 Eastern Daylight Time, >owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org writes: > >> 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!) > >I heard the name of the new entity is Loose Ends :) http://www.avaya.com - -- Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 2000 21:44:16 -0400 From: "Nguyen Doan" Subject: New turnkey Buisness Models Greetings All Does anyone have any feedbackon telecom and fiber otpics turnkey assembly bisness models? Are they profitable and what types of services or distinctions best support this structure? Would anyone have any examples? Thank you - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 2000 23:30:43 -0400 From: davidll@toad.net (David Lee) Subject: Re: Verizon won't do "inside moves" On 10 Sep 2000, you wrote in comp.dcom.telecom: >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 $4.50/monthly charge call forwarding on the original >local phone number to have calls sent to the new (unnecessary!) number. > >Who says there's a number shortage?! Verizon has (212) numbers to spare >... > >(but can anyone tell me why they won't do "inside moves?", something >that should take about 3 minutes, I'd think, technically ... ?) > >Judith > >Judith Oppenheimer, +1 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert >Publisher, http://www.icbtollfree.com/testimny.cfm >Register for FREE 800/Dot Com Headlines here: >http://www.icbtollfree.com/reg.cfm?NextURL=Index.cfm >-- >The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail >messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. This seems bizarre considering BA has an organization (BACCSI) dedicated to inside wiring. According to my BA white pages , BA does inside work for a service fee plus time and material charges. OTOH, BA is just coming off a strike, and everything is still backed up. It may be that they are not accepting any inside work until the backlog is cleared up. It would probably be easier to just move it yourself or hire someone to do it for you (alot of "phone companies" have popped up since 1984). Dave - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 2000 03:33:55 -0400 From: Peter Morgan <$nospam$@webnet.clara.net> Subject: Re: Dialing the US from France In comp.dcom.telecom I saw that on 10 Sep 2000 11:08:38 -0400 "earle robinson" wrote: >If one lives here the cost through alternate carriers is quite low. >I pay 8 cents a minute myself. In the UK there are services charging ~5c/min (prepaid and a few which bill monthly). There are also a couple of services which only operate weekdays, but need no registration. Dialling just a "national" rate number (about 12c/min peak [08:00-18:00], and 6c/min) one then dials the international destination. There's a web site for one www.just-dial.com which lists the countries served (inc USA/Canada) and the other number is 0870 794 0000. [I am not employed or associated with either company. The cost is standard BT charge - it may be more from a phone box or any other telephone company. Info provided simply to show how the international charges are dropping - these firms make a tiny amount of income per minute - hence weekdays only - from the income for calling an 0870 compared with the discount charges they're paying for the international calls, one assumes.] PGM webnet at technologist.com - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ End of Telecom Digest V2000 #49 *******************************