Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA01061; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 11:51:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 11:51:01 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199608211551.LAA01061@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #429 :::::::::::::: output :::::::::::::: TELECOM Digest Wed, 21 Aug 96 11:51:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 429 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: DFW Dialing (was End of Permissive Dialing in 954) (Brian Purcell) Re: Will Full Number Portability Occur? (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: What is "Number Portability"? (John Cropper) Re: Why is the Internet So Slow? (John Agosta) Re: Why is the Internet So Slow? (Robert McMillin) Re: Alex Mandl Hangs it Up (John Cropper) Re: Alex Mandl Hangs it Up (Rick Strobel) Re: No Local Phone Competition in 'Small' Markets (John Cropper) Re: Timed Local Internet Calls (David Richards) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bpurcell@centuryinter.net (Brian Purcell) Subject: Re: DFW Dialing (was End of Permissive Dialing in 954) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 96 14:36:38 GMT Organization: Wide-Lite Linc Madison wrote: > 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. Make the change? Make *what* change? A quick review of the dialing plans section of this year's NANP shows that there is no concensus on how to dial local FNPA calls. Many states use 1+10D, many use 10D, and lots use 7D. In addition, several use more than one as standard or permissive. Virginia will let you use any of the three. Just because California has elected to use 1+10D does not mean that this is the way everyone else should do it. If you ask me, most consumers have come to believe that 1+ means "toll" while it seems to me that many telco people (particularly in this newsgroup) will say the 1+ means "the following number includes an area code." If that's the way it is, we should just do away with 1+ completely and let the system figure out if: a) it's 7D or 10D b) it's local or toll c) it's intra- or inter-LATA Otherwise, what's the point of adding the 1+? Maybe we should just incorporate 1 into everyone's NPA (1415, 1510, 1213, etc.). That's pretty much what dialing 1+10D on every FNPA call (local or toll) means anyway. IMHO, it makes sense to use 1+ only to designate *toll* calls, and forbidding it on local calls. That way, the consumer know when dialing if it's a free call or not. A little bit of education (read: marketing) will help to reduce the dialing public's confusion. So, let me propose a "uniform dialing procedure": HNPA local: 7D HNPA toll: 1+NPA+7D FNPA local: 10D FNPA toll: 1+NPA+7D Regards, Brian Purcell bpurcell@centuryinter.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 09:39:10 -0700 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: Will Full Number Portability Occur? In a response to Al Varney's post on this subject, Pat mentions: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Al, what I do not understand is how > anyone could be expected to know where they were calling or how much > it would cost if phone numbers could be taken all over the USA. If > I took my 847 number and moved to California then what would happen > when my next door neighbor in California wanted to call me? I assume > they would dial my 847 number but would telco in California first > assume the number was in Illinois and look over here to the telco > to get instructions on forwarding it back to California, etc? I > think portability in a geographic sense would be a disaster. PAT] Full NANP-wide number portability is not necessarily ruled out. It may be some decades before it is possilbe and available, but it is just an extrapolation of local portability among service providers and geographically within a local calling area. Likewise, it would be an extrapolation of existing toll-free (800/888 and later 877, 866, 855, 844, 833, 822) number portability. "Full-blown" number portability will require a *great* deal of regulatory and industry negotiations, as well as further technological development and actual hardware/software installation. Presently, even 500 and 900 numbers, while geographically portable, are not portable amongst *service-providers* (i.e. the 500-NXX and 900-NXX codes are 'fixed' assigned to carriers, service providers and 'functions'), but even those Special Area Codes might even have some form of service-provider portability, similar to 800/888 number portability. Full NANP geographic number portability will obviously use SS-7 (or whatever the next technological platform is) interconnected databases, similar to 800/888 portability. A call from your next-door neighbor in California dialing 'your' 847-NXX-XXXX number will do a *database lookup*. Something like a "Location Routing Number" (similar to a circuit number) will be returned from the database, which will route the call to you. This LRN will *NOT* be a standard NXX-NXX-XXXX dialable number, but from a numbering scheme not 'dialable', and it will not even 'conflict' or be 'ambiguous' with any NXX-NXX-XXXX number. These databases need not be located in the 'old' area where your 847- number had previously been located. The network of databases and the location of individual databases (and back-up copies) aren't really important to the customer dialing the call. When you place a calling-card call from Dallas to Chicago, the card-number verification process could access a database in New York City or California, etc. Then again, the database to verify the card number could even be located in Dallas or Chicago. Also, the IXC's switch you first accessed to place the card-call might be in a different location from the verification database, altogather! As for billing and rating, this will be something also to be looked at further, as tariffs for charges are affected. It could be possible that all calls within the NANP (or portions of it) in the future will either be 'free' or they will be 'fixed rate' similar to postage rates. Of course, 800/888/877/etc. numbers will continue to be 'toll-free' to the caller, and certain other numbers (900, etc) will be expensive "PAY-PAY-PAY-per-call". If charges are still based on some form of distance or location for POTS numbers, the information on location of the ten-digit number will be also associated in the database network for rating purposes. You might even be able to arrange it with your service-provider(s) such that any call from the Chicago metro area to your 847-NXX-XXXX number will continue to be 'free' to Chicago originating callers. *YOU* would be paying the 'toll' charges for those calls. Calls from the California local area would be free (or low-rate 'local'), as all of this billing/rating information would be associated with your 847-NXX-XXXX number in the network of numbering databases. But then, you might not want to pay the toll charges for originating Chicago area callers. This info, as well, would be associated with your 847-NXX-XXXX number in the databases. The toll charge or 'local/free' differentition for customers who wouldn't want to dial a call carrying a charge without prior notification since they don't know the location anymore based on the NXX-NXX- code *SHOULD* (IMO) be determined on the use of the '1+' prefix: *IF* the call is 'free' or 'local', it could be dialed as 'straight' ten-digits and be completed as dialed. If there is a charge above a certain price barrier, calls dialed without the '1+' would be given a recording "You must first dial a '1' or '0' before dialing this number". *All* calls dialed with a '1+' prefix would go through, and be charged at the proper rate, if such a charge applies. 'Free' or 'local' calls dialed with a '1+' would still go through, but billed 'free' or 'local'. Again, the charge information in the database associated with that NXX-NXX-XXXX number would determine the call processing results based on whether or not the calling party dialed a '1+'. And of course, anyone with 900- (and pay-per-call prefix) blocking would continue to be blocked against calls to certain area codes or NXX-NXX- codes which carry such a premium rate charge. And as I mentioned earlier, *all* of this, while possible, is still a long way off! But look at the Worldwide Web, etc. Domain names (URL's) *are* portable in these ways, as there are database lookups which return a 'location' or 'routing' URL. MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: 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 ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Re: What is "Number Portability"? Date: 21 Aug 1996 06:33:40 GMT Organization: Pipeline On Aug 20, 1996 17:09:37 in article , 'Michael Graff ' wrote: > In TELECOM Digest V16 #417, Tad Cook submitted two press > articles about California area code splits. Both talk about "number > portability", and each article gives a different definition of that > term. > In "California Peninsula to Get New Area Code", it says: >> "number portability," which allows customers to keep their numbers >> should they opt to change phone companies > In "415, 916 Area Codes to Split in Two", it says: >> number portability -- where a person's phone number stays with them >> no matter where they go > Which of these definitions is correct? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It refers to keeping your phone number > **within the same local community** regardless of which telco you > choose to use. It does not mean you can take your phone number all > over the USA. There would be no way to keep track of long distance > versus local calls, etc. Of course you can get something like a 500 > number from AT&T and take *that* all over the country. PAT] Actually, Pat (and Michael), the FCC would like BOTH to eventually (5-15 years) be correct. The days of an NPA representing a particular geographic boundary may be numbered if some individuals get their way ... Distance-based rate structures will have to fall away completely (almost there), and a few other technical modifications will have to be made at the "mom & pop" LEC level, but we're 65-70% there for that kind of portability for all NPAs now. Personally, I hate the idea, but it's not yet "up to me". :-) John Cropper NiS / NexComm PO Box 277 Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 Inside NJ : 609.637.9434 Outside NJ: 888.NPA.NFO2 (672.6362) Fax : 609.637.9430 email : psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ From: jagosta@interaccess.com (John Agosta) Subject: Re: Why is the Internet So Slow? Date: 21 Aug 1996 14:33:35 GMT Organization: Agosta and Associates In article , Mark Friedman <71534.332@CompuServe.COM> says: > I am performing some research and am interested in hearing from anyone > with an interesting theory of why Internet access is so slow? It's because of all the JERKS out there sending electronic junk mail to thousands of users trying to sell US get rich quick schemes, investments, cures for baldness, and other magic potions. ja [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh, I don't really think so. Certainly there is a lot of junk on the net but the computer does not know the difference between a jerk sending thousands of pieces of mail trying to sell something and a jerk sending out thousands of pieces of mail referred to as a 'Digest' of some sort. It is a combination of all these things; the net is just getting a lot more traffic than it used to get. We see the same thing on the streets in every large city. Thirty to forty years ago traffic on the road and highways was not nearly as heavy as it is now. Other than 'rush hour' roads were relatively quiet all day with cars going past occassionally. Now the slow times of day look like 'rush hour' used to look thirty years ago on busy roads, etc. Prior to the construction of the interstate highway system in the 1950- 60's era people still traveled; they just did not travel as much or go as far, and it took longer to get where they did go. The net is the same thing all over again. And although I am not trying to be particularly protective of the 'jerks who send out thousands of pieces of mail trying to sell something' there *are* a lot of people using the net who are as equally sincere in their efforts as you and I. I honestly do not think many of the people who do junkmail and spam realize they are considered offensive. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) Subject: Re: Why is the Internet So Slow? Organization: Charlie Don't CERF Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 14:43:33 GMT On 20 Aug 1996 18:00:17 PDT, Mark Friedman <71534.332@CompuServe.COM> said: > I am performing some research and am interested in hearing from anyone > with an interesting theory of why Internet access is so slow? > For instance, > Is it the data com backbone, the protocol, the routers, the > Servers, or the browsers? Pac*Bell has reported serious problems with their ATM switch at their California NAP. For full details of what's going on and how they hope to fix it, read http://www.pacbell.com/products/business/fastrak/networking/nap/nap2-6.html My understanding is that Pac*Bell is the only NAP operator using ATM at this time. Robert L. McMillin | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: rlm@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Re: Alex Mandl Hangs it Up Date: 21 Aug 1996 06:39:19 GMT Organization: Pipeline On Aug 20, 1996 20:35:02 in article , 'ptownson@ massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)' wrote: > Instead he (Alex J Mandl) decided to chairman and chief executive officer > of Associated Communications, a brand new unit of the Associated Group, a > company located in Pittsburgh, PA with significant investments in Mexican > wireless firms, and Tele-Communications, INc, the biggest USA cable > television operator. > His resignation takes place immediatly, but he will assist AT&T as > needed in making an orderly transition of management responsibilities. > Good luck, Alex ... I think AT&T was the loser in this deal. Who could blame him? ACC offered a $20 *million* signing bonus, plus 18% of all future growth of ACC's market value (currently at $200 million; if he grows ACC's market value to only $1 billion, that's $144 *million* in his pocket). Sounds like a major sports-figure contract, when you think about it ... :-) John Cropper * NiS / NexComm PO Box 277 Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 Inside NJ : 609.637.9434 Outside NJ: 888.NPA.NFO2 (672.6362) Fax : 609.637.9430 email : psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ From: rstrobel@infotime.com (Rick Strobel) Subject: Re: Alex Mandl Hangs it Up Date: Wed, 21 Aug 96 11:43:07 GMT Organization: InfoTime In article , ptownson@massis.lcs. mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) wrote: > Alex J. Mandl gave up a chance to lead the world's biggest communications > company, AT&T, saying he would rather start a telephone company of his > own instead. > Instead he decided to be chairman and chief executive officer of Associated > Communications, a brand new unit of the Associated Group, a company > located in Pittsburgh, PA with significant investments in Mexican > wireless firms, and Tele-Communications, Inc, the biggest USA cable > television operator. Pat, Could you, or someone in the group, comment on the technology that Mandl finds so compelling at this new company? Apparently Mandl feels that it's the next big thing. At least that's what I gather from the news reports I read. They have all been light on the tech side. Thanks. P.S. - I'm still looking for a follow up to the Flat Rate Cellular post from last week. Did I miss it, or are we still waiting for more info? Rick Strobel InfoTime Fax Communications 502-426-4279 502-426-3721 fax rstrobel@infotime.com http://www.infotime.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As John Cropper points out in the message just before yours, perhaps it was the money rather than the technology which he found 'so compelling'. :) I have not seen much on the flat rate cellular item from last week so a reminder is perhaps in order: Anyone who would care to comment to Mr. Strobel or the group on 'flat rate cellular' per the item which appeared in the Digest several days ago? PAT] ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Re: No Local Phone Competition in 'Small' Markets Date: 21 Aug 1996 06:50:46 GMT Organization: Pipeline On Aug 20, 1996 21:31:17 in article , 'cc004056@interramp.com (Greg Monti)' wrote: > In a story, entitled, "Why Phone Rivals Can't Get Into Some Towns," in > the _Wall Street Journal_, August 19, 1996, page B1, writer Leslie > Cauley explains that not all areas of the U.S. will be subject to > local phone company competition. The gist of the story is that the > new federal Telecommunications Law exempts rural phone companies and > small companies from the competition requirements put on the baby > Bells, Sprint and most of GTE. > The definitions of "small" and "rural" exempt some multibillion dollar > telcos from competition. Examples: Southern New England Telephone, > with 2.1 million access lines and $1.8 billion in 1995 revenue, is > exempt from competition. Perhaps, but they're still going head-to-head with AT&T at the moment. AT&T's currently offering 5c per minute rates intra-LATA within Connecticut, and has a huge media blitz under way in New England (Boston, Hartford) and mid-Atlantic (New York) radio and TV markets. SNET has countered with a plan of their own, and has pioneered 1 *second* billing on long distance calling (minimum 18 seconds, I believe). > Little Rock, Arkansas, based Alltel, with > 1.6 million access lines and 1995 revenue of $3.1 billion is, too. So > is $2 billion Frontier, with almost a million lines. Same with > Cincinnati Bell and Century Telecommunications, each with over > $600,000,000 in annual revenue. In fact, most of the 1,300 > "independent" telcos are exempt. These companies cover 10% of the > U.S. population, or about 26,000,000 residents. If they want to compete, they can, though, I'm assuming ... > A rule also allows small, rural divisions of large telcos (those with > less than 50,000 accesss lines in a "market," whatever that is) to > also apply to be exempt from competition. In some parts of the > country, that rural company is none other than GTE, the largest local > telco in America. Surprise, surprise ... > A carrier with less than 2% of the nation's access lines (like > Frontier) or those with fewer than 3,000,000 lines company-wide can > apply to become exempt from competition. > The story quotes a Houston woman, who moved from SBC territory, where > basic local service was $11.05 per month, into Alltel territory in > Sugarland, Texas, where the same service is priced at $20.65. The > story notes that call waiting is $6.50 per month from Alltel, and > $2.80 from SBC. The story notes that Alltel feels it provides good > service at good rates in all of its markets. > A consumer advocate in Pennsylvania is quoted as saying that most of > the rural companies in his state will apply for and get the exemption, > which he laments will mean that 20% of the the population will not see > local competition in the foreseeable future. No wonder the LECs were crowing over the Telecom Act ... :-) John Cropper NiS / NexComm PO Box 277 Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 Inside NJ : 609.637.9434 Outside NJ: 888.NPA.NFO2 (672.6362) Fax : 609.637.9430 email : psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ From: dr@ripco.com (David Richards) Subject: Re: Timed Local Internet Calls Organization: Ripco Internet BBS Chicago Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 05:56:55 GMT In article , Fred Goodwin wrote: > A final question: if (as some believe) there is no additional marginal or > incremental cost to the telco for long-duration calls, why then do so many > online and Internet providers charge for usage rather than a flat rate? > If there is a cost to online providers, why not a cost to the telco also? As an online provider, I can authoritatively state that a small minority of Internet providers (fewer every day) charge by usage. Most charge a flat 'all you can eat' rate, while some include a fixed number of hours (usually around 200 hours/month) with an hourly fee for extreme usage. Internet Providers, like the telco, oversell their connections, but on a smaller scale. For example, we charge $15/month for an 'untimed' personal account, with the expectation that you will only be online while you are awake and at the computer -- if you have a wife, job, etc. this is at most three to six hours a day. Because of this and other factors, we can oversell by 10-1 and the only time all the lines are full for a full five minutes straight is at the peak point of the day -- just about when Seinfeld goes off the air :-) We also charge a much higher (X3) rate for a 'dedicated' type account where we EXPECT the user to be connected full time. If we sell ten of these accounts, we order ten phone lines, because we know for a fact that this user will probably call once and never hang up. The phone company has the same thing, but they call it a 'leased line' and (for 64K service) their higher rate isn't X3 a regular residential phone line- Ameritech charges about $1000 for installation and several hundred dollars per month- _TEN_ times as much! If I could get a leased line installed from my home for about what ISDN costs now (for both my circuit and my ISP's) then I wouldn't be (ab)using ISDN as a dedicated service. An earlier article made a good point -- while a conservative estimate gives 30,000 local Internet _customers_ in Chicago, there are at most 1,500-2,000 phone lines total going _to_ their ISPs, scattered throughout the metropolitan area. Coupled with Ameritech's distance based phone rates, and the load on any one switch or trunk is minor, and with the amount we've paid them alone they should be able to buy a new 5ESS for the local central office. David Richards Ripco, since Nineteen-Eighty-Three My opinions are my own, Public Access in Chicago But they are available for rental Shell/SLIP/PPP/UUCP/ISDN/Leased dr@ripco.com (312) 665-0065 !Free Usenet/E-Mail! ------------------------------ 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 #429 ******************************