Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id SAA24482; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 18:00:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 18:00:46 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199608192200.SAA24482@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #422 TELECOM Digest Mon, 19 Aug 96 18:00:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 422 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: DFW Dialing (was End of Permissive Dialing in 954) (Linc Madison) Re: 1+ Dialing and How it's Billed (Linc Madison) Re: Rural Internet Access (Tony Toews) Re: When Was Direct Distance Dialing Cut In? (Ed Ellers) Re: When Was Direct Distance Dialing Cut In? (John R. Levine) Re: Phone Privacy: Collecting Damages From Solicitors (Big Drum) Re: Wireless Satellite Communication - A Challenge (Curtis Wheeler) Re: Need Simple Phone Line Tester (Jeff Becklehimer) Re: Getting a Semi-Public Pay Phone? (Dave Sellers) Re: Getting a Semi-Public Pay Phone? (S.J. Slavin) Re: Modem Access Fees (Tim Gorman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: DFW Dialing (was End of Permissive Dialing in 954) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 12:47:59 -0700 Organization: Best Internet Communications In article , cc004056@interramp.com (Greg Monti) wrote: > Although I disagree with this, I can see how it came about. > Dallas and Forth Worth began being required to dial 10 digits for local > calls between them about four years ago. Prior to that, local calls which > crossed the area code boundary between the two metro areas were dialed with > just seven digits. > [discussion about "Metro" numbers, toll-free local calls from the entire > Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan area. Metro numbers in the other area code > used to be dialed as just the 7-digit number, but are now dialed as > exactly 10 digits. Many people were confused when they started having > to dial 817-xxx-xxxx or 214-xxx-xxxx to reach "metro" numbers, so the > businesses complained and made the telcos list the numbers as > ********** TOLL-FREE 817 xxx-xxxx, etc.] I think your historical perspective is off by a couple decades. The current procedure of forbidding dialing the initial '1' on local calls predates the 10-digit FNPA local dialing by a long stretch. In 1971, when I first moved to Dallas, if I dialed 1-744-xxxx for a number in downtown Dallas, I got a reorder and was told to dial without the '1'. If I dialed 1-265-xxxx or 1-817-265-xxxx for a metro number in Arlington, I got a reorder and was told to dial only the 7-digit number. If I dialed 1-214-xxx-xxxx for a toll call within 214 (Tyler or Texarkana, for example), I got a reorder and was told to dial just '1' plus the 7-digit number. Southwestern Bell has always been very particular that you must have one and only one way to dial any given call. I thought it was silly in 1971, and I think that much moreso now. Protecting businesses from losing customers who are afraid of tolls can easily be accomplished with the big bold "TOLL-FREE" listings in the directory, and by simply telling people that if you don't dial the '1' then the call won't go through if it's toll. There is neither a technical nor a user-interface reason for forbidding dialing '1' on local calls. As far as "metro" numbers go, people had better be used to dialing the area code but knowing it's still local, because if you're in downtown Dallas, *ALL* "metro" numbers will be dialed with 10 digits -- all 214 "metro" numbers will move to 972. As the area codes get smaller and smaller, and people become more and more mobile, it becomes more and more important to have a single uniform dialing procedure that is guaranteed to work anywhere in the U.S. Southwestern Bell and the Texas PUC should stop dragging their feet and make the change. Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: 1+ Dialing and How it's Billed Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 13:04:30 -0700 Organization: Best Internet Communications In article , psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) wrote: > On Aug 16, 1996 00:08:37 in article , > 'cc004056@interramp.com (Greg Monti)' wrote: >> John, you are implying here that the '1' dialed at the beginning of a >> long distance call chooses the *company* that carries the call. No. >> The company carrying the call is chosen by regulatory boundaries, by >> default carriers, and by 10XXX or 101XXXX codes. > Actually, in my case, Yes. If I dial intra-NPA to AC, as in your > example, using 345-xxxx, the charge appears on the LEC portion of my > bill. If I dial using 1-609-345-xxxx, it appears on the LD carrier > portion of my bill (or at least it has been appearing there.) If by "AC" you mean Atlantic City, that's inter-LATA from Pennington, although they're in the same NPA. If New Jersey Bell is handling it differently depending on whether you dial 7 or 11 digits, then the switch is (once again) misprogrammed, in violation of applicable laws. Unless you are pre-selected for NJBell for your inter-LATA toll calls, they should all be handed off to and billed by your selected IXC, no matter how you dial the calls. As an example here in California, if someone in San Jose (in the northern portion of area code 408, in the San Francisco LATA) calls someone in Monterey (in the southern portion of 408, in the Monterey LATA), the call will be handed off to and billed by his selected IXC whether he dials 7D or 11D. When Pacific Bell is allowed to enter the market for inter-LATA tolls, the situation will remain the same for that call. (Neither California nor New Jersey requires dialing '1+NPA' for toll calls within the same area code.) Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ From: ttoews@agt.net (Tony Toews) Subject: Re: Rural Internet Access Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 15:57:44 GMT Organization: AGT Ltd. bsharp@cris.com (Brian M. Sharp) wrote: > Is there any way people living outside a metropolitan area can get > internet access without having to pay per hour? With all the interest > in the internet, isn't there some service that can see the huge number > of people in this uncomfortable position? Here in Alberta the new president of the telco, or so I hear the story, told his staff to cut the BS and get Internet service throughout Alberta. Which we now have. Every little hamlet or remote location now has a local access phone number. This includes some places up near the border of the Northwest Territories accessible only by winter road, river or airplane. I, for one, certainly enjoy thier service. It's pretty darned good quality service compared to some other ISP's which I was previously accessing via long distance. Tony Toews, Independent Computer Consultant Jack of a few computer related trades and master (or certified) of none. Microsoft Access Hints & Tips: Accounting Systems, Winfax Pro, Reports and Books at http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: When Was Direct Distance Dialing Cut In? Date: Mon, 19 Aug 96 13:49:58 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Art Kamlet writes: > That day I was in NY and asked the opertator for a number in Detroit, > "LIncoln (pause) 77938) and the NY operator said That's not a legal > number, please state the number correctly. I hadn't caught on yet, so > I again said, more slowly, Lincoln (pause) 77938, and she got mad and > said she could not connect me. I caught on, being a New Yorker and > all that, and corrected to LIncoln 7 (pause) 7938 and she said, that's > a number she could try. Sounds like her head was in the wrong place. :-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Aug 96 02:26:00 EDT From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: When Was Direct Distance Dialing Cut In? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > I also recall that following the dialing of the number, a human > operator would come on the line and ask "Your number please!" to which > you were to respond with your own number and not the number which you > were calling. Rumor had it that this was for billing purposes and if > you gave someone else's number, they would be billed for your call. > (I was an honest kid and never tried it, however, so I don't know if > this was true.) They sure would. At my relatives' telco in rural Vermont, my aunt used to spend a fair amount of time each month handling complaints about misbilled numbers and figuring out who actually should get charged for them. The towns were small enough that it usually wasn't all that hard to figure out who knew who and who called who, but it was still a pain in the butt. They were greatly pleased to switch from ONI (Operator Number Identification) to ANI (Automatic Number Identification) and leave that particular task behind. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com "Space aliens are stealing American jobs." - Stanford econ prof ------------------------------ From: Big Drum Subject: Re: Phone Privacy: Collecting Damages From Solicitors Organization: APACHE LTD Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 13:55:07 GMT Why deal with them at all? There's a company selling a single-line CallerID box with a brilliant twist -- it won't pass a call through to your handset unless its configuration says the call's OK. You program in a list of phone numbers you ALWAYS want to ring through and a list of phone numbers you NEVER want to ring through. An incoming call will either be 1)rung through if on the ALWAYS list , 2) hangs up if on the NEVER list , or 3) routes the call to your answering machine. I'd imagine there are other ways to program it with what to do with the three types of calls you can receive. And then there's all the "special cases" - collect calls, etc, that you'd have to anticipate. But the concept is beautiful! Probably as good as you can get without a jam-proof traceback capability (so you could call *them* at the dinner table). Tom Screaming Sky reference: "Computer Telephony" magazine, 07/96 issue, p120 ------------------------------ From: Curtis Wheeler Subject: Re: Wireless Satellite Communication - A Challenge Date: 18 Aug 1996 23:57:30 GMT Organization: Just Me and My Opinions (Std. Disclaimer) MarvinDemuth@worldnet.att.net (Marvin Demuth) wrote: > Earlier I wrote: >> WHAT WE NEED: >> We need facilities, preferably involving satellite communication with >> voice, fax and email capabilities, at low cost. I have seen figures >> from $1.49 to $9.00 per minute on the Web for satellite service. We >> need something better than this. We need to be spending our funds on >> drilling wells and providing medical care for people who have no >> resources. Preferably, we need to be able to operate at both ends with >> non-licensed operators, just the same as it would be if we were making >> a telephone call. > Mark Rivers confirmed the cost of INMARSAT-M at $4.50 (US) and wrote: >> A cheaper alternative would be using an MSAT which provides coverage >> over North and Central America. Currently the system offers voice and >> data capabilities but does not offer fax. The fax capability should >> be out soon but do not hold your breath. Cost for this system is >> approximately $4K US for the equipment (+ or - $1K depending on the >> model) and airtime rates vary but range between $1.55 - $2.75 per >> minute CANADIAN. I am not sure how the rates and billing proceedures >> work in the states. > Can anyone give their experience with MSAT from the US to the > Caribbean area? The Caribbean seems to be well within the coverage of the MSAT foot print. With that, I would assume that it works as well between stations there as it does bewteen stations within the ConUS. I have demo'd some MSAT equipment and find the performance quite acceptable. > Can anyone give me by posting or e-mail the best rates available in > the US for this service? "SkyCell" (American Mobile Satellite Corp) has offers that can get the telephone airtime down to about $1.19 per minute with a $25 or less per month access charge. Another service they offer is dispatch. This allows you to set up groups that can use the MSAT like a two way radio system (similar to a SMR service). At this time I have seen offers from Skycell that flat rate this service -- in other words, no airtime charges when using the system as a two way. They don't offer this service by itself. It is an additional option to the telephone service. They have deal now for dispatch service at $69 per month -- again, flat rate but in addition to the regular access charge. If you didn't make any "phone calls" you wouldn't rack up additional airtime charges using the two way. The disadvantage of the two way system is that each station has to have a terminal ... at about $4K each. At least one of the terminals they sell, the Mitsubishi ST151, is fax capable -- but only at 2400bps. There is a "modem interface" that operates to 4800. Note this is a narrowband, digital service so data rates are limited. "Tellular" is soon to release an "adapter" that will let you use a POTS type device on the unit. This is simialr to the adapter they offer for cellular phones. The transportable ST151 that we tried was available for between US$3500 and US$4500. It depends on the deal you strike and the options you want/need. Fax and dispatch capability are options to the unit. > Does anyone know of any special MSAT arrangements that can be made for > organizations engaged in humanitarian work? The worst they can say is "no". Give them a call in Reston, VA at 800-872-6222. Regards, Curtis KD6ELA / GROL / PP-ASEL cwheeler@ccnet.com cgwh@chevron.com ------------------------------ From: beck@slidell.com (Jeff Becklehimer) Subject: Re: Need Simple Phone Line Tester Date: 19 Aug 1996 03:55:03 GMT Organization: slidell.com inc, Slidell Louisiana Dave Close (dave@compata.com) wrote: > What I'd like is a simple test tool they could use to verify that > the phone line is appropriate and working before they connect their > modem. > I need a test that can be performed in a minute or > less. And, of course, price is important; I suspect such a device > should be possible for less than ten dollars. Well, they're not less than ten dollars. Go to Yahoo and look for "modem savers". Jeff Becklehimer slidell.com, inc. ------------------------------ From: Dave Sellers Subject: Re: Getting a Semi-Public Pay Phone? Reply-To: sellers@on.bell.ca Organization: Bell Sygma Inc. Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 12:48:27 GMT Lisa wrote: > My condominium has a swimming pool and clubhouse. There is an > extension phone (from the office line) for emergency calls from the > pool. We are finding more requests by people to use that phone to > check their home machine for messages, call friends, etc. Also, > guests at clubhouse events want to call home to check the babysitter, > etc. > We called Bell about installing a pay phone, but they wanted a very > high installation charge and a guaranteed minimum use which we do not > expect to meet. We expect maybe average five to ten calls per week in > summer, and two calls per week in winter, spring, and fall. > Could anyone suggest perhaps a tariff on how we could get a Bell pay > phone more inexpensively? I've seen Bell phones at other condo pools > with a layout similar to ours that can't get that much usage. Would Bell put the phone in because it is needed for emergency use? (Take out the office line phone.) Bell puts many phones in on bus routes for this purpose ... Just a thought. Dave Sellers Managing Consultant - Broadband Support Systems Room 1950, 160 Elgin St. Voice 613-785-2694 Ottawa, Ontario, K2P 2C4 FAX 613-781-3620 ------------------------------ From: sjslavin@aol.com (SJSlavin) Subject: Re: Getting a Semi-Public Pay Phone? Date: 19 Aug 1996 00:02:37 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: sjslavin@aol.com (SJSlavin) Your title says it all -- why not install a semi-pub. Are they not still available? Semi-pub is a coin phone on your business line. Pay the monthly line rate (which you are apparently paying already), telco keeps the coins. What is missing here? Steve Slavin, Sr. Regulatory Analyst San Ramon, CA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think what is missing is Lisa said they did *not* want to have to pay the monthly fee for a phone out there and that telco would not install it as a purely public (or commissionable) pay phone because of the lack of regular usage. One thing they might consider however is leaving the phone they have there, but disabling the touch tone pad, or at least disabling all of it except the '9' and '1' keys. That would enable a user to dial 911 and nothing more. They could also clearly mark the phone 'Emergency Use Only - Phone Rings Police' and then have a one-number speed dialer attached which, when the phone went off hook would dial '911' or some other preset number. They could have that on their existing line which is there now and it would not interfere with the regular use of the phone from other locations. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tim Gorman Subject: Re: Modem Access Fees Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1996 10:46:38 -0500 Eric Florack (Eric_Flrack@mc.xerox.com) in #412 tilted at the windmill built by Tim Gorman (tg6124@tyrell.net) and Bob Wulkowicz (bobw@enteract. com): >>> Maybe I took it badly, but I read Mr. Robeson's post as a pompous >>> dismissal of us as the technologically and managerially unwashed. >> I don't know if he meant it that way but it is true that with no >> real understanding of traffic patterns, density, and provisioning >> requirements it is difficult to judge whether fees established >> for service are reasonable or not. "Common sense" is not typically >> a very good judge. > Hmmmm. Common sense isn't what drives telcos? Look out Dilbert. > Here comes Telco. Respectfully, you ARE tilting at windmills. I did not say that common sense was not what drives telco's. Common sense, however, is NOT a good indicator of what reasonable fees should be for anything. Common sense would indicate that farmers get rich when food prices go up. It isn't usually the case. >> Providing that caller id to you required the telco to invest in >> new software in every central office switch to handle the >> feature, not a cheap thingIt also required them to invest in >> the analog modem equipment in every central office necessary >> to send that caller id down your phone line, again not a cheap >> proposition. You ARE paying for much more than some access to >> a "phantom" data packet. > A common sense examination of this is in order: > Let's assume that every CO has 10,000 customers, just to keep the > figure nice and round. Let's say half of them take the LEC up on > it's offer of CID. Lessee ... $5/mo it what was quoted here, and > its a nice figure. So ... > 5000*$5=$25000 per month or, of income, or 12*$25,000= $300,000/yr > on CID alone. > Over a quarter million on CID profits per year alone, on a > per-switch basis! Can you confirm that CID cost telco more than > that to install? If not, the initial investment is in reality > paid off in less than a year. That leaves aside the multiple > data-use issues. This is where the common sense starts to lead you astray. Capital investment is not expense. It doesn't get paid off in less than a year. You must earn on the investment, you must place sufficient earnings in depreciation to replace the investment when it is obsolete, and you need to earn a contribution to net revenue. The modems that are installed are not $140 USR Sportster modems either. They are industrial grade design intended for 24x7 operation for decades with zero downtime -- and they are much more expensive. What you calculated was gross revenues and called them profits. That is not common sense either. And while a penetration rate of 50% for CID may also sound like common sense for CID I sincerely doubt you will find very many locales with that high of a rate. > Speaking of the modem use issues, you say: >> As competition comes you will have the option to move to a lower >> cost provider. You will also find that you don't get something >> for nothing. Much as has been found out in the long distance >> market today, the low cost, niche competitors may provide lower >> costs for specific things but they either don't provide 24x7 full >> service, they don't provide the same levels of call blockage, etc. > Fact is that as competition comes, Telcos are going to find that > they no longer have the capacity problems they once did. People > will be leaving in droves for cable modems to run everything ... > including voice traffic ... and the telcos know it ... which is > why Jack Brooks is not exactly considered the best friend of the > telco, these days. This is yet another case where common sense will lead one astray. You are speaking as if the telecommunications market is a zero sum game. It is not. While the telco's will certainly see some areas where they lose market share they will also find other areas where they will pick up market share. And this does not even factor in the growth anticipated from a competitive market. In any case, the telco's have never had a capacity "problem". They may run into capacity shortages but this is not a problem, it is an opportunity! You should also try Internet phone sometime. While usable for some things it's quality and even usability is hardly ubiquituous. It will be quite some time before investment in sufficient data packet infrastructure, be it frame relay, ATM, or something different exists in sufficient capacity to make "droves" leaving the present infrastructure anything more than a pipedream. > The fact is that all this complaining about modems sucking up > capacity is utter nonsense, on several levels. The telco would > be involved no matter what the traffic on the wire is, no matter > what format it is. Matter of fact, I suggest that capacity > problems would be far WORSE, if not for the modem. Modems convey > information far faster than voice, after all. And the information > would need to be transmitted in /some/ form. Or are you suggesting > we'd all be using the USPS? Wire? You mean the local loop? Do you really think this discussion is about the local loop? The point of discussion is cost allocation. If a local network between two central offices need 100 trunks (using typical assumptions for voice traffic) and growth in long holding time data calls necessitates an increase in the number of trunks to say, 200, then why should the users making the long holding time data calls not pay for the additional infrastructure they cause to be placed? Why should the cost of this infrastructure be placed on those only making voice calls? > This is naught but the Telcos trying to obtain more money for > providing what is essentially the same service; an audio channel of > 300-3000cps on a point to point connection. The bitching and the > clamoring for additional price increases, based on what is /in/ those > limits; IE; the type of data being put on that audio channel, will end > up driving the data traffic off the telcos. It's true. data traffic > will leave for cheaper, less regulated pastures. Cable being only one > such option. Again, your common sense is misleading you. The discussion concerning modems has nothing to do with channel bandwidth but, instead, how long that bandwidth is tied up to a specific call and not available for other use. Usage dependent infrastructure that is needed IS dependent on usage -- by definition. As voice traffic moves to other "pastures", access to those pastures as well as the pastures themselves will be sized to handle the bandwidth demand. And cost causers will be charged more, regardless of the pasture. > But what the telcos have not planned on, in my opinion, what they'll > be caught flat-footed by, is the amount of voice traffic that leaves > with it. Internet voice calls are, I think a harbinger of something > the telcos don't want to talk about much; the fact that the people, > the customers, are getting nearly as technical as the telcos ... at > least enough that they're able to get around technical and legal > roadblocks set up by people whose only interest is maintaining a > hammerlock on the nation's communications. Suffice it to say that the "data" providers in this country do not have the infrastructure available to handle today's voice traffic with the same grade of service available in today's voice network. By the time the infrastructure is even available from the vendors the telco's will be right in there with everyone else installing the infrastructure. I have used internet voice. It is NOT ready for prime time. It is far from being ready for prime time on anything resembling a competitive widespread offering. > I'm sorry, but I find it hard indeed to work up any sympathy for > telco's cries of 'foul'. Your common sense has lead you into developing a strawman that doesn't even resemble what is being discussed. This is not a cry of foul from the telco's. It is a recognition of a need for equitable cost allocation. Expecting my grandmother to pay the freight for your 24 hour long data call is what is foul. More and more state commissions are becoming aware of this and are making inquiries of the industry as to how it can be handled. As I pointed out before, if it were free then local calls would be free, toll calls would be free, there wouldn't be any coin phones, and no need for 800 service. That just isn't the case. Tim Gorman SBC - I speak only for myself ------------------------------ 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 public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* 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. 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #422 ******************************