Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA29999; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 09:08:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 09:08:28 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199608141308.JAA29999@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #406 TELECOM Digest Wed, 14 Aug 96 09:08:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 406 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: When Was Direct Distance Dialing Cut In? (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: AT&T (NY) Adding Extra Charges to 'Casual' Users (John Higdon) Re: Cellular Service! Flat Rate! Scam? (Dave Keeny) Re: Why Not Eight-Digit USA Numbers? (Poll Dubh) Re: Hardware/Software Required for CallerID via TAPI (WSchochet) Re: End of Permissive Dialing in 954 (Linc Madison) Re: How Low Can Loop Voltage Go? (John McHarry) Re: Call for a Universal Phone Number Format (Alistair Knox) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 19:09:36 -0700 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: When Was Direct Distance Dialing Cut In? Paul Houle wrote: > I have a historical question which I hope isn't a FAQ in this group, but > which I have not been able to find an answer on the web or the telecom > archives. > I'm trying to find out exactly when DDD (direct distance dialing) was > cut-in in the US. I have the impression that there was a specific date in > the late 50s or early 60s but I've had bad luck looking for it. This > surprises me because of the fact that such a date may be a good watershed > for the development of our civilization -- the first moment when it was > possible for an individual to make a connection across a continent without > human attention. *Customer* DDD was *phased* in, beginning in November 1951 and continuing through roughly the mid-1960's. Englewood NJ was the *FIRST* place to have an experiment of outward customer DDD, beginning 10 November 1951, just four years after the North American (US/Canada) Area Code format was finalized in October 1947. Operators had been 'dialing' or 'keying' toll calls of various distances in various parts of the US and Canada since the 1920's, but there was no standardized national (US and Canada) numbering plan until 1947. Even then, and throughout the 1950's and early 1960's, there were places where an operator had to manually connect to a party, even if the called party had dial service itself. Even today, there are about 1500 or so locations in the US, Canada, Mexico and Caribbean where you need an AT&T, Bell or local Canada or Caribbean telco operator to place calls to/from there, but these locations are *very* rural and remote! However, with the right equipment in place, in 1949 there was some limited *Operator* toll dialing from San Francisco to certain metro areas (including to New York), using the *Area Code* plus the exchange name and remaining station digits, ringing the called party without the need of a second operator in the terminating city! The November 1951 Englewood NJ experiment of outward customer DDD (the term Direct Distance Dialing wasn't standardized until the late 50's or early 60's, and was referred to as Customer Long Distance Dialing for most of the 1950's) was available from all single (non-coin) and two-party lines, but *only* to certain selected metro areas in the continental USA. The customer dialed straight seven digits (2 letters plus 5 numbers) for northern NJ local and dialable toll locations, without any mention of area code 201. New York City itself was dialed from NJ (and the same is true in the reverse direction, from New York City to northern NJ) as '1-1' plus the 2L-5N. The NY City suburbs of Nassau County (Long Island) was dialed from Englewood NJ as 516 plus the 2L-5N. The NY City suburbs of Westchester & Rockland Counties (including parts of Orange and Putnam counties) was dialed as 914 plus the 2L-5N. Other customer dialable cities from Englewood NJ in November 1951 included Boston metro (617+), Chicago metro but not northwest Indiana (312+), Cleveland metro (216+), Detroit metro but not Windsor ON (313+), Milwaukee metro (414+), Oakland CA (east bay) metro (415+), Philadelphia metro but not Camden NJ (215+), Pittsburgh metro (412+), Providence RI metro (401+), Sacramento metro (916+) and San Francisco (west bay and north of the Golden Gate) metro (318+). Please note that all area codes are still the same for these areas, although there *have* been some splits, *except* for the SF Bay area. In October 1947, area code 415 actually covered *all* of central coastal CA, but the November 1951 DDD "first" for Englewood NJ used 318 for reaching San Francisco points. This was only a temporary use, as AT&T/Pacific-Tel. wanted to have better trunking into San Francisco and Oakland, using distinct area codes. The originating #5XB local office in Englewood NJ could only "three-digit" translate in 1951/52, using internal relays, as the electromechanical Card-Translator box hadn't been introduced. The Card-Translator box was introduced in 1952/53 and was located at #4XB Toll offices (and probably later at XB-Tandem) could "six-digit" translate a much larger block of NPA-NNX codes and establish complex routing and alternate routing arrangements and switching, something an individual local #5XB office wasn't expected to do. San Francisco and Oakland each had toll-switches which would handle inbound customer dialed or operator dialed (or connected) calls, specifically for that city, although there has been local dialing between the two cities for quite some time even before 1951. Sometime in the early to mid 1950's, Area Code 318's use for San Francisco/west-bay was 'reclaimed', and San Francisco 'returned' to area code 415. Area Code 318 was assigned to the 1956/57 split of Louisiana's only area code in 1947, '504', and covers all of Louisiana, except for 504 which covers southeastern La. (at least it will continue for another couple of years, when both 504 and 318 will need some form of split or overlay). Oakland/east-bay split off from 415 in 1991, into Area Code 510, which was previously one of the special TWX area codes! Now, as for the phasing in of customer long distance dialing, it all depended on how fast Bell and the independents were introducing Crossbar equipment into the network, at least #4(A)XB Toll and XB-Tandem, as well as improvements in the transmission portion of the network, and also *numbering* plan standardization. Locations which were *not* on a fixed seven-digit basis (or 2L-5N) were usually *not* able to be dialed direct from areas which did have outward customer DDD. Changing to seven-digits (2L-5N) wasn't mostly realized until the early 1960's. This didn't mean that even an area on a seven-digit basis couldn't continue to dial local calls as three, four, or five digits, which has usually continued to happen in many rural areas and small towns. But the 'official' directory listings and other telco publicizing of numbers had to be seven-digits before a customer could DDD to that location. Operators had special codes in their Rate and Route Guides to dial into a 'less-than-seven-digit' city, which customers weren't permitted access to. And the digits dialed for outward customer DDD weren't always standardized. Areas which had panel and crossbar equipment usually dialed "Home NPA" toll calls as "straight" seven digits, and "Foreign" NPA calls as "straight" ten digits. There was no numbering or code ambiguity, since all area codes were N0X/N1X and all central office codes were NNX as they had been based on the first two letters (and previously in some areas, the first letter or first three letters) of a name (with *few* exceptions, there are no letters on the '1' or '0'). But non-senderized step originating DDD locations had to dial an *access prefix* to gain direct access to incoming dialpulse registers of a #4(A)XB or XB-Tandem office, which could handle the (NPA)-NNX-XXXX dialed digits. In the 1950's, most 'step' areas which did have originating customer DDD used '112', which was one of the usualy 'step-style' local service codes, 11X. In some areas, the customer might have even had to wait for a second dialtone from the XB toll/tandem office before dialing (NPA)-NNX-XXXX. This '112' step access prefix was changed over to '1+' in most step areas about 1960, as well most step areas changed their service centers from 11X codes to N11 codes, or local seven-digit numbers. For standardization, many crossbar/panel areas also adopted the use of '1+', if there were some local step offices in the area which used '1+'. Now, the use of '1+' has two somewhat different meanings: 1+ indicates a ten-digit number follows, regardless of local or toll, while seven digit numbers without a 1+ could also be local or toll; and the 1+ indicates toll, which now means 1+ a full ten digit number if it is toll, while local calls HNPA are dialed seven-digits, and local FNPA are usually dialed straight ten-digits. Hopefully, as overlays become more the rule, 1+ will continue to be a toll-indication prefix, permissible for local ten-digit calls (without incurring toll/extra charges), and straight ten-digits will be all local calls whether in the home HNPA, adjacent/nearby NPA, or within the *overlayed* but different NPA! By the mid-1960's, most parts of the (continental) US and Canada were aware of customer DDD, even if they didn't have it. Most North American telcos were putting Area Code maps and listings in the front of the directory, so the customer would be aware of area codes and even if they didn't have DDD, they could verbally tell the (long-distance) operator the NPA plus seven-digits of their called party, which the operator would readily key in, and the equipment would complete the call within (usually) ten-seconds. But the *rate* of introduction of customer outward DDD (as well as locations which could be inwardly reached DDD by customers *as well as* DDD-keyed by operators all depended on the type of equipment already in place and constantly being upgraded all over this *VAST* US/Canadian telephone network. And there is one other equipment factor to consider ... that of automated ticketing (billing) equipment being introduced (AMA/CAMA/SAMA/LAMA/etc), although DDD *has* been provided with Operator Number Identification, and in the case of any remaining four and eight party lines, ONI is still the rule! 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 ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 00:26:16 -0700 From: John Higdon Subject: Re: AT&T (NY) Adding Extra Charges to 'Casual' Users kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) writes: > And AT&T has been withdrawing from billing arrangements with many > RBOCs, and likely wishes to avoid paying RBOCs for billing services. > Dialing 10(10)288 could cause a billing charge from RBOC to AT&T. Or > could cause a bill to be generated to a customer of unknown credit > worthiness, and possibly for a single call a month. So AT&T may wish > to avoid those customers. The long distance carriers have always hated the casual calling code system and have purposely misled the public into the assumption that you had to "subscribe" to a long distance carrier to use its services. This is what has given rise to the over-use of the word "switch". "SWITCH to MCI and save..." It has been the availability of casual calling that has made possible true competition in the long distance business. Just as you can walk into a supermarket and select a particular brand of a can of peas, you can select who will carry your long distance call on the fly. The latest strategy by AT&T, MCI, and others yet to come is to eliminate this option by making casual selection expensive. > One more item: If the non AT&T PIC goes out of service, many callers > might suddenly try to use AT&T as its fair weather friend, placing a > sudden high load on AT&T circuits. Isn't is fair to charge those who > are only fair weather friends more? Long distance companies are not my friends; they are vendors with whom I may or may not choose to do business. None of the carriers is so close to the edge of capacity that a few casual callers would overload circuits. What it amounts to is a way to wring just a few more bucks out of the public without actually raising rates. Casual callers always pay more since they do not participate in those rate plans available to all regular subscribers. Adding a surcharge is adding insult to injury. > Like a delayed insurance premium. > After all, AT&T is sitting there providing "insurance" in case of > other PIC failure, but is otherwise not receiving any premium for this > service. What about the reverse? There are times that AT&T is unusable and other carriers provide backup to AT&T. Is that why MCI has begun this practice as well? No, it has to do with REMOVING instantaneous choice from the hands of consumers. Hopefully, it will bite them in their respective posteriors. I am aware of a company who has been using MCI for years. The firm is a major user of long distance, to the tune of many thousands of dollars per month. So dedicated to MCI is this customer that they programmed 10222 in front of all calls outdialed by the PBX, making all trunks "slam-proof". Unfortunately, they WERE slammed to another carrier without anyone's knowledge. One month the MCI bill showed up with thousands of dollars-worth of SURCHARGES -- one for each and every call made on the PBX, which dutifully dialed the 10222 before each one. So far, MCI has refused to even consider removing those charges even after hearing a complete explanation of what happened. Needless to say, this loyal MCI customer is having serious second thoughts about re-PICing to MCI at all, ever. If the name of the game is "Grab All You Can Get", then the long distance companies will reap what they sow: a non-loyal, steadily churning base of dissatisfied customers. And you talk about "fair-weather friends"? John Higdon | P.O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | +1 500 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 | http://www.ati.com/ati/ | ------------------------------ From: Dave Keeny Subject: Re: Cellular Service! Flat Rate! Scam? Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 07:58:03 +0500 Organization: Telecommunications Techinques Corporation Reply-To: keenyd@ttc.com Raymond B. Normandeau wrote: [big snip] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Does anyone want to investigate this > a bit further and tell us what is known about Jess Medina, his > company, and the company he is an agent/reseller for? That phone > number he gives is of interest, as is loop.com. PAT] Pat, An alt.cellular poster received the same offer from Azimuth, with the following address: > Azimuth Online Services > 120 S. San Fernando Blvd. > Suite 403 > Burbank, CA 91502 > 818.295.3746 Phone The poster made the following note: Note: I called directory assistance and there is no local listing for Azimuth, no 800 listing, and the 888 number I got for Western Cellular was a cell phone itsself! Also, the person who called me back (no one answers their phone) knew nothing about cellular service or his company. I don't know which Western Cellular he called, but there is one in LA that is listed under telephone equipment and systems: Western Cellular...Los Angeles, CA 90016 Phone: (213) 731-6349 The business phone number of Azimuth is the home phone of: Rachel & Jess Medina 534 E Harvard Rd, Apt. #aa Burbank,CA 91501-1800 (818)295-3746 Jess also has been advertising a free online service, using the account lineofsite@aol.com: Azimuth Online Your Free Online Service 818.567.1981 I couldn't reverse-lookup that number. These particular postings went out to *way* off-topic newsgroups, and prompted a spate of cancel messages. Advertising as azimuth@loop.com, he has been much more well behaved in terms of on-topic postings (mainly forsale, and some business groups). He's posted a job offer for VP of Sales: New online services company is seeking entreprenurial minded team player for a new startup venture. There is a lot of work to do, and [snip] This position will require hard work and some risk (no financial investment required). Although this position is executive level, the [snip] Finally, loop.com is an ISP (http://www.loop.com) that seems to be just another access provider. They don't respond to fingering, but that's not too unusual. I know there is not much new information there, but, IMO it does raise a few red flags. It does for me, in any case. Dave [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, it certainly does create a few additional questions. Any readers in the Burbank, CA area wish to look into the address given and try to find out more? PAT] ------------------------------ From: singular@oort.ap.sissa.it (Poll Dubh) Subject: Re: Why Not Eight-Digit USA Numbers? Date: 13 Aug 1996 17:42:51 GMT Organization: Lasciate ogni speranza voi ch'entrate mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk (Richard Cox) wrote: >> Er, no. Psychologists confirm that eight digits is the maximum number >> of digits that can be reliably remembered and dialled by the average >> user. Tony Harminc replied: > Citation, please! I've dealt with eight-digit numbers in Paris, and I > have great trouble remembering them long enough to copy from one place > to another. But I have little or no trouble with NANP ten-digit > numbers. There are two different issues here. One is what constitutes a "digit" from a psychological standpoint. If you have a handful or two of local area codes, you may consider each of these familiar three-figure sequences as a single "digit" of a base- system. The other point is that claims about eight digits being the maximum (I've also heard it claimed that the maximum is seven) are usually based on the well-known "7 plus or minus 2" limit on human short-term memory. But there is little to keep us from using our long-term memory instead, even for such tasks as copying a number from one place to another. (I think "short-term" means a fraction of a second in this context, although I could be wrong about that.) > I'm sure this is because I mentally partition the area code > from the easy-to-remember seven-digit number. In Paris, I mentally pull > the leading digit (usually 4) off the front, and then remember (say) > 42 34 56 78 as 4 234-5678. Much much easier for my brain to deal > with. In Toronto I do much the same thing -- except that instead of a > leading 4 it's a leading 416 or 905. Each of us does it a little differently. I don't partition the initial 4 off (especially as it could easily be a 3 or a 6). Instead, I split the whole number into 4+4 (others would say 2+2+2+2) and remember each half exactly as I would the last four digits of an NANP number. > I very much doubt it. I think the "eight is easier than ten" claim > misapplies the research. Three plus three plus four is easier, IMO. My guess is that they are about par, once people have had time to optimize their learning strategies for the new scheme. I would still expect a purely mechanical linear scaling of the error rate with the number of digits, so that ten-digit dialing is about 25% more error-prone than eight-digit dialing. More opportunities for your fingers to fumble or for your keys to rebound, that's all. ------------------------------ From: wschochet@aol.com (WSchochet) Subject: Re: Hardware/Software Required for CallerID via TAPI Date: 13 Aug 1996 11:33:49 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: wschochet@aol.com (WSchochet) There are a couple of diferent ways to support TAPI on Northern Telecom systems. Unfortunately, all NT keysets say Meridian on them from the smallest key system to the lagest PBX's and the exact requirments vary. Assuming you have a Meridian 1 switch, you can do TAPI 1.0 stuff, which should support your screen pop type applications using an MCA (Meridian Communications Adapter) and a digital keyset. MCA's are a couple hundred bucks a pop as I recall. There is a TAPI driver for the MCA. TAPI 2.0 stuff (ie third party call control) requires Meridian Link, a product that will interface your PBX to your other systems -- a few bucks there and Nothern isn't exactly the most helpful when it comes to getting the nitty gritty on how the thing actually works -- they would be happy to refer you to an authorized Northern Developer who will do it for you ... Check out http://www.nortel.com/ ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: End of Permissive Dialing in 954 Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 02:12:49 -0700 Organization: Best Internet Communications In article , wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com (Wes Leatherock) wrote: >> If the call isn't a toll call, you MUST dial 10 digits, and you MUST >> NOT dial a 1. Doesn't this go against all other major cities that >> have split? > Nope, sure doesn't. This is true in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, > and will probably be true in any other Southwestern Bell areas which > have similar splits. > Some customers (by far the vast majority) are not like the > people in this newsgroup and are very concerned to know when they are > dialing a toll call. BUT THIS FEATURE DOES NOT PROVIDE THE BENEFIT YOU DESCRIBE. There is **NO** benefit to PROHIBITING dialing the '1' for a local call. NONE. ZERO. NADA. ZILCH. If you want to know if a call is toll or not, try dialing it without the '1'. If it goes through, it's local. If it doesn't, you'll get a message telling you to redial with the '1', and you know it's toll. (This is in the areas that have the strict "1+ for all toll calls" rule.) However, if you don't care one way or the other, why should you be forced to redial simply because it's a local call? There's NO EXCUSE for it! Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ From: John McHarry Subject: Re: How Low Can Loop Voltage Go? Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 06:19:10 -0700 Organization: Erols Internet Services Tom Watson wrote: > The threshold for on-hook to off-hook voltages should be somewhere about > 10-20 volts (lower is better). I'd experiment by putting a resistor in > series with my home set and seing when the central office thinks it is > on/off hook. Always an interesting subject. The CO, like the telephone set itself, is current, not voltage driven. Old analog COs used relays in series with the line that would pull in when a certain amount of current was drawn. Digital COs have feed resistors instead and measure the voltage drop across the feed resistors. Both of these arrangements can allow things like 25 volt feed for short loops (sounds better on some phones) and higher voltage feed on long loops to push enough current. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 22:55:05 +0100 From: Alistair Knox Subject: Re: Call for a Universal Phone Number Format Organization: Macrovision UK Ltd. In article , markus.uhlirz@aut. alcatel.at writes: > In many European countries the international access code is "00", > but in France it is "19", 990 in Finland, 095 in Norway, 011 in USA, > 010 in UK, 009 in Sweden, 07 in Spain and so on. Actually, the UK changed its international access code to 00 (instead of 010) back in April 1995. Alistair Knox ------------------------------ 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 #406 ******************************