Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id DAA09821; Sun, 9 Mar 1997 03:24:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 03:24:02 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703090824.DAA09821@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #61 TELECOM Digest Sun, 9 Mar 97 03:24:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 61 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Toronto's New Area Code (David Leibold) Re: Toronto's New Area Code (Andrew Mitchell) Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving (Dave Grabowski) Re: NH-NYNEX Rant of the Month (gregnyc27@aol.com) Re: IBM Problem With Area Code 240? (Mark J. Cuccia) Slammed Again! (Robert Bononno) Tele-Consumer Hotline (Scott Morton) Re: Bell Atlantic: Chutzpah! (Diamond Dave) Re: Bell Atlantic: Chutzpah! (Victor Escobar) Re: USR 56k Modems and CODECs (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: USR 56k Modems and CODECs (Tom Crofford) Re: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion (Craig Macbride) 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 hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@massis.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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: djcl@interlog.com (David Leibold) Subject: Re: Toronto's New Area Code Date: 8 Mar 1997 17:37:41 -0500 Organization: InterLog Internet Services (416) 975-2655 info@interlog.com In article , wrote: > I heard that Bell will soon announce a area code split for Metro > Toronto also known as MegaCity Toronto. In Metro we had a vote on > combining the 5 cities and 1 borough into a megacity {The Toronto Star} had a front page story on it today (6 Mar 1997). It was on their website (www.thestar.ca) but will likely disappear with the next day's edition. Bell Canada is planning an overlay code within the existing 416 territory (i.e. Metro Toronto). Thus, a place could have lines of two different area codes, just as they can have two different exchange (NXX) numbers. Mandatory 10-digit dialing for local calls is to be implemented. > I believe that Bell has put off plans for a 416 split boundry until > the province namley Premier Mr. HARRISment decides if he will be a > czar and still combine metro despite the vote. There isn't any evidence that the political doings about the Toronto "megacity" had much to do with the 416 NPA relief of Bell Canada. But then again, stranger things have happened ... > I read in news groups that the split could be along Yonge Street (Hwy > 11) also known as the world's longest road!!! That plan was rejected ... as was the notion of a "wireless" overlay (put cell and page folks in the new area code, leave conventional service in 416). It appears that Bell did not consider a London, UK style split -- inner Toronto (the City of Toronto proper) would retain 416, outer areas of Metro would get the new code. > Many people in the GTA have chosen "416" cell numbers even through > they are in the burb's "905'ers" that has reduced the numbers > available for metro in general. When is the split happening? New area code in 416 will likely be in effect by 2000 ... Bell is probably concerned about getting 1998's Montreal 514/450 split out of the way first, though. > Will The "New Bell" let us know!!!! Are you going to be informed? YOU WILL ... (apologies to AT&T). > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The newspapers around here say he is > going to push through the 'megacity' idea regardless of what anyone [. . clip . .] > the public servants do whatever they want anyway. If this guy in > Canada gets his way, is there any court of appeal or way to go over > him or is his word the final one? PAT] Guess Mike Harris, the Ontario Premier, and his henchmen are about to force the issue, though they may retreat on some other issues (such as plans to dump more welfare funding onto Ontario municipalities). Municipalities are generally considered to be a creation of the province, thus the Ontario government theoretically can diddle the boundaries and local governments at will. But not without invoking some backlash. BTW all six municipalities within Metro Toronto voted overwhelmingly against the megacity concept in Monday's referendum ... though there are concerns regarding the accuracy of the voting because of the various methods used. But that is something of a victory for the anti-amalgamation forces, and a demonstration of considerable opposition to the merger plans. djcl@interlog.com --> http://www.interlog.com/~djcl/ ------------------------------ From: Andrew Mitchell Subject: Re: Toronto's New Area Code Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1997 08:42:20 -0500 Organization: Sympatico Reply-To: amitchell@sympatico.ca james@io.org wrote: > I heard that Bell will soon announce a area code split for Metro > Toronto also known as MegaCity Toronto. In Metro we had a vote on > combining the 5 cities and 1 borough into a megacity > I believe that Bell has put off plans for a 416 split boundry until > the province namley Premier Mr. HARRISment decides if he will be a > cazr and still combine metro despite the vote. > Many people in the GTA have chosen "416" cell numbers even through > they are in the burb's "905'ers" that has reduced the numbers > available for metro in general. When is the split happening? The new NPA for Metropolitan Toronto, to be introduced in 2000 will not result in a split. The implementation will involve an overlay of the existing 416 NPA. Bell released this in a media blurb. There is no indication that the decision has anything whatsoever to do with what Mike Harris has planned for Metro. Andrew Mitchell mailto:amitchell@sympatico.ca ------------------------------ From: grabowsk@netcom.com (Dave Grabowski) Subject: Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1997 13:47:06 GMT Organization: All USENET -- http://www.SuperNews.com On Tue, 04 Mar 1997 22:19:11 -0500, Curtis R. Anderson wrote: > According to a brief announcement heard on WKBW-TV during the six p.m. > news, the New York legislature is considering a bill which would ban > the driver's use of handheld cellular phones while the vehicle is > being operated. > The Legislature is using those studies which suggest high accident > risk while the driver is talking on a cellular phone. > It almost makes one wonder about folks who get cellular phones in > their cars for safety and convenience. Even if the bill does not pass, > one can expect insurance companies to raise liability premiums for > cars with cellular phones. What's next -- a ban on the driver's use of the radio? I guess it would promote carpooling. "Well, if you ride with me, we can listen to the news." Insurance charges for cars with radios? An extra premium for folks with CD players? Dave (in NJ - the highest insurance rates in the nation) ------------------------------ From: gregnyc27@aol.com Subject: Re: NH-NYNEX Rant of the Month Date: 8 Mar 1997 14:47:39 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Speaking of NYNEX, I have come across a peculiar situation when I ordered phone service upon moving into my new apartment in Manhattan. Phone installers show up. They tell me that the feeder box for this block is in the next building, and "the superintendent hates the phone company, so we may not be able to get access to the feeder box to hook up your line". I spoke to my co-op board and the installation foreman for this area at NYNEX. The truth of the matter is that NYNEX never purchased the space in the building that this feeder box occupies, and thus have decided that NYNEX will no longer have access to the box, and have instructed their superintendent not to admit them. NYNEX's attitude is that they will try to get in when they can and hook up my line, but it may be weeks or months before they can get phone service to me. I find this situation ridiculous. In legal terms, if the feeder box has been there for a while (as I'm sure it has been, if it indeed serves the entire block), NYNEX should be suing the building for an easement based on the legal principle of adverse possession, and in the meanwhile they should be able to obtain an injunction permitting access to their equipment until the situation is resolved. Instead, their position is that they are installing a new feeder box in a different building, which will take six months to a year due to asbestos abatement, etc. I am wondering what my options are here. I sincerely doubt that the phone company is permitted to refuse to provide service simply because they screwed up on installing their infrastructure. Should I complain to the PSC, and is there any statutory/regulatory framework which addresses this issue? Somehow, I think others in NYNEX-land have already come across this issue before. Greg ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1997 13:37:08 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: IBM Problem With Area Code 240? In TELECOM Digest, Paul Robinson wrote: > Bellcore has a page (http://www.bellcore.com/NANP/240.html) listed to > show the test number for area code 240 - the overlay area code here in > Maryland for AC 301 - to see if it works from a specific area. Since > 240 isn't even set up to be in effect until May, the number, which > will be 240-999-8378, doesn't work, of course. > Only problem was when I tried dialing it to see if that was a working > number from here in 301 country. We are still on seven-digit dialing > here (when 240 goes through, ALL local calls will be 10 digits), so I > tried just dialing the short part of the number. Merely dialing > 999-8378 sits on dead silence for 1/2 a minute before timing out to a > recording saying "Your Call Did Not Go Through". Calling 301-999-8378 > gets a recording saying the number is wrong. "Your call can not be > completed as dialed." > But, when I tried dialing the regular number as listed, I got a > surprise. When I dialed 240-9998, the phone system clicked, and I got > shunted to a recording (probably from a PBX, as follows:) > "You have reached a non-working number at IBM, Gaithersburg Maryland. > Please check your number and try again, or call your operator for > assistance." (I note, also, that the recording did not include a SIT > tone, as is often used even with private non-valid number announcements.) > Well, it's obvious that this particular number doesn't work. But it > implies that IBM has other numbers in the 240 prefix that DO work. > And they are probably going to have some problems when people confuse > their exchange with the new area code. Or, as the case may be, that > Bell Atlantic requires they switch their PBX to a new prefix. > I was unaware that there is a 240 exchange in this (301) area code. I > am surprised that Bell Atlantic didn't try to get an area code that > wasn't in use here as an exchange, or made sure any such exchange had > everyone moved off at least a year in advance to reduce the > possibility of confusion. I believe that having an exchange which is > the same as any area code which is near to the area in use is only > asking for trouble. > For example, the area codes that are local to me in Silver Spring, MD > are 301, 410 (Columbia, MD), 202 (DC), 703(Virginia). Also, because > they are touched by parts of this area code, there should not be a > 304(WV), or 610(PA) exchange. I'd even recommend, since it is one > state over, not to have 302(DE), 804(VA), or 757 (VA) exchanges, for > example. The new overlay NPA codes for Maryland 'officially' go into effect on the 1st of June, 1997. IIRC, _MANDATORY_ ten-digit (local) dialing takes effect in Maryland one month earlier on the 1st of May, 1997. I think that Maryland is presently 'permissive' seven and ten-digit local dialing. In an overlay situation (with associated _mandatory_ ten-digit local dialing), it doesn't matter if a prefix and an NPA code are the same. In a seven-digit dialing situation, there can be (and are) seven-digit numbers of the format 240-240X. Therefore, it follows that there can be _ten_ digit numbers of the format 240-240-xxxx, if mandatory ten-digit local dialing were in place. With _mandatory_ ten-digit local dialing, It will also be _possible_ to have the following prefixes: 240-202, 240-302, 240-240, 240-301, 240-410, 240-443, 240-703, etc. 301-202, 301-302, 301-240, 301-301, 301-410, 301-443, 301-703, etc. 410-202, 410-302, 410-240, 410-301, 410-410, 410-443, 410-703, etc. 443-202, 443-302, 443-240, 443-301, 443-410, 443-443, 443-703, etc. As for the potential problems dialing to IBM's (301)-240-xxxx PBX lines, I don't think that will be a problem where wrong numbers and misdialings constantly reach particular unintended parties (read: _people_). Oh, there _will_ be misdialings, but I think that most of them will go to telco intercept and 'vacant-code' recordings. Begin- ning 1 May 1997, Someone trying to seven-digit dial to numbers in IBM's PBX as 240-xxxx would then 'stop' at the seventh-digits. Local dialing will be _mandatory_ ten-digits by that time, and about ten-to-thirty seconds after dialing the seventh-digit, the central office switch will 'time-out' to a 'partial-dial' ("your call did not go through") recording. _All_ local calls to IBM (and anyone else in Maryland) will _have_ to be dialed as 301-240-xxxx, in the _full_ ten-digits. IMO, in the long-run, NPA _overlays_ with associated _mandatory_ ten-digit dialing for all calls including local, makes more sense. The use of the '1+', however, is still being debated, and IMO should indicate to put the call through, regardless of local/toll status (any possible billing would be based only on the calling and called NPA-NXX codes), while _absence_ of a '1+' should indicate to put the call through _only_ if the called NPA-NXX is 'local' or 'free'. MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut_1-2497 WORK:_mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu_|4710_Wright_Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity_5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New_Orleans_28__|fwds_on_no-answr_to Fax:UNiversity_5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|_cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 10:38:33 -0500 From: rb28@is4.nyu.edu (Robert Bononno) Subject: Slammed Again! Organization: Techline Well, it's happened again. That's twice in less than a year. This time I was slammed by none other than AT&T, a company I used to use as my long-distance provider. AT&T calls at least once every 3 months, trying to convince me to switch to their service. I always say NO. Some AT&T telemarketer called (must have been early February, because I was apparently switched on 2/26/97) and started promoting the service. I hung up the phone. Hmmm. Does hanging up now constitute assent? Seems as if in this topsy-turvy world, no means yes. Now, the really annoying part is that I had placed a *restriction* on my lines with NYNEX and was under the impression that it required my specific permission (to NYNEX) to switch my long-distance provider. Can anyone tell me what the hell is going on here? This is getting out of hand. Robert Bononno - rb28@is4.nyu.edu - CIS:73670,1570 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1997 18:37:55 -0800 From: Scott Morton Reply-To: tch@teleconsumer.org Organization: Tele-Consumer Hotline Subject: Tele-Consumer Hotline **TELE-CONSUMER HOTLINE ON-LINE** The Tele-Consumer Hotline is an independent and impartial education service that provides information to help consumers better understand the broad new array of communications products and services. The Tele-Consumer Hotline also offers an interactive 'Ask the Experts' section, that allows consumers to ask specific questions about telephone products and services. This is *not* an automated process. Each request is read and replied to individually by the experienced and trained staff at the Tele-Consumer Hotline. All of this information is provided free of charge and consumer privacy is always respected. The Hotline has served more than half a million consumers since it began operations in 1984. Information is available in both Spanish and English and the website has been designed to be accessible for persons with vision impairments. Topics include: o Choosing a long distance company o Slamming o Calling Cards o Assistive Technologies for people with disabilities o Telecommunications Relay Services The Hotline publications offered on the website are also available free of charge to consumers who send a self addressed, stamped envelope with the name of the publication(s) requested to: Tele-Consumer Hotline P.O. Box 27207 Washington, DC 20005 We appreciate feedback about our site and any suggestions as to how to improve our services. If you or your organization would be interested in providing a link to the Tele-Consumer Hotline site or have any questions about our services, please contact the webmaster at . Thank you. Scott Morton Hotline Counselor Tele-Consumer Hotline (202) 347-7208 ------------------------------------- The Tele-Consumer Hotline was jointly founded by the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), the nation's largest consumer advocacy organization, and the Telecommunications Research and Action Center (TRAC), the oldest and largest public interest communications group. In addition to CFA and TRAC, the Hotline's nonprofit board of directors includes representatives from the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), Consumer Action (CA) and the Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (VCCC). Financial and technical support from AT&T, Bell Atlantic, MCI, NYNEX, Pacific Bell, SBC and Sprint enable the Hotline to provide its services and publications to residential consumers without charge. ------------------------------ From: bbscorner@juno.com (Diamond Dave) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic: Chutzpah! Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 14:04:43 GMT Organization: Diamond Mine Dave Levenson wrote: > It's bad enough that Caller*ID service, even at this late date, only > delivers the calling number on about 30% of all inbound calls here. That's one of many bad things about Bell Atlantic's Caller ID service. I recently moved from one side of my town (Fredericksburg, VA) to the otherside, but kept the same phone number. I had caller ID on one of my phone lines (my BBS line) and wanted it continued after the move. But, after the move, BA turned it off when they disconnected service at the old location. It took two phone calls to Repair Service and one call to Resident Accounts for them to turn it back on. AND -- they wanted me to pay an "installation fee" when it was THEIR mistake of turning it off in the first place. I talked them out of doing that! Side note: I don't see why they are charging the consumer $7.50 for caller ID deluxe (name and number delivery) when the equipment and software are already in the switch, and all they do is activate it via a computer in a remote town (for me its either Washington DC or Richmond, VA) Side note #2: I still do NOT get people who call in long distance who have AT&T as their carrier on the caller ID box (it says "out of area" though MCI and Sprint are passing that info on. Is it an AT&T problem or a Bell Atlantic problem?? Thanks, Dave Perrussel Assistant webmaster - "thedirectory" of Internet Service Providers http://www.thedirectory.org ------------------------------ From: barrett@freedomnet.com (Victor Escobar) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic: Chutzpah! Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 21:33:16 GMT Organization: INTERNET AMERICA On Tue, 4 Mar 97 18:10:18 EST, Dave Levenson wrote: > It's bad enough that Caller*ID service, even at this late date, only > delivers the calling number on about 30% of all inbound calls here. Yeah, I get the dreaded UNAVAILABLE on most of my calls. When asked if my friends used *67 to block their number, they said `Of course not, because you know it already!' And forget about displaying the number outside of my area code. > I told her that I would not spend an additional cent on Caller*ID > until it started delivering caller identification on far more than the > 30% of calls on which it currently works. She insisted that it works > on `most calls' today. Next thing you know they'll institute an English language surcharge. Victor Escobar Internet Consultant ------------------------------ From: fgoldstein@bbn.|nospam.|com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: USR 56k Modems and CODECs Date: 8 Mar 1997 21:32:52 GMT Organization: BBN Corp. In article , eje@xap.xyplex.com says: > Well, after eagerly awaiting X2 code since the time it was announced > in October, and having downloaded the code and enabled it this > weekend, I discover that -- guess what? I'm a loser: my attempts to > connect via X2 via my home line (NPA/NXX 508-872) yield this error. That's the Framingham 5ESS, no problems there. BUT ... > 1) My line is working at 100% capacity > 2) My line is 4 miles (21,200 ft) of copper > 3) There is no SLC involved. This is very common. NYNEX loves long loops. Four miles of wire is typical for urban and suburban areas. It is not what X2 was designed for. > His judgment was that the 4 miles of copper were the impediment; when > I asked him about where the multiple CODECs might be, he said that > there were "enhancers" (based on the description, I'd call them > repeaters) along the line to handle some sort of signal quality issue > with touch-tone. I doubt there are active "enhancers". Most likely they're just loading coils. Standard telco practice is that whenever a local loop exceeds 18kf, 88 millihenry coils are inserted in series every 6 kf. This turns the loop into a 4 kHz low-pass filter with rather linear response below that number, and thus much less loss *for voice*. It doesn't gronk ordinary modems too badly, since they're below 4 kHz. But X2 and K56 are based not on voice-grade channels, but upon the actual behavior of unloaded copper pairs going into digital switches. Very different. > I note from NYNEX's web page that ISDN requires a local loop shorter > than 3.5 miles (18,000 ft?), so it looks like I'm just over. Alas, that's true. NYNEX does NOT provide repeaters, either, under its regular ISDN tariffs. (Many other telcos do.) Your only hope for ISDN is to locate a SLC within 18kf and get wired to it. Your only hope for X2 is to locate a SLC within 18kf and get wired to it, AND to have them use "integrated" mode, where there's no codec at the CO end. Since they more often use "universal" mode, even that avenue is probably closed, at least for the time being. What you need is local telco competition, and not "resale" or even "unbundled local loop". NYNEX apparentlly uses bad local loops as a competitive weapon, to prevent competitors from wanting to use it to compete. Maybe AT&T's Fixed Wireless or a CATV-based solution will help. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein"at"bbn.com BBN Corp., Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850 Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1997 23:33:58 -0800 From: Tom Crofford Reply-To: tomc@xeta.com Organization: XETA Corporation Subject: Re: USR 56k Modems and CODECs I'd like to understand why the x2 technology limits the D-A translations to one. According to USR's white paper, they must find 92 of the possible 256 binary PCM values that can be used between the ISP and your modem. If this is the method of operation, I think 92 or 256 are possible with more than one D-A translation. Tom Crofford tomc@xeta.com ------------------------------ From: craig@rmit.EDU.AU (Craig Macbride) Subject: Re: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion Date: 9 Mar 1997 07:32:27 GMT Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. Judith Oppenheimer writes: > "The primary issue is confusion for our potential guests," says Bill > Poe, vice president in charge of corporate systems for Choice Hotels > International, which owns the Quality Inn, Comfort Inn and EconoLodge > chains. "If they're trying to reach one of the affinity [800] numbers > that we have been advertising, they might dial 888 and get some other > company. That's going to be very confusing for guests, and potentially > very irritating." Similarly, if they are trying to dial a number in New York and put an LA area code in front of it, they'll not get through to the party they wish to get through to! > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ... > Whatever happened to the concept that some people are just plain dumb; > some will *never* understand how to dial the phone correctly, and > there is little that can be done for them. More importantly, some people just don't know yet and will learn, if anybody bothers to tell them. In countries where toll-free and local-charge long distance numbers have a variety of prefixes, there is little confusion. People know they have to record the whole number and dial the whole number correctly. The problem the US has is the people who think that any toll-free number must start with 800. Once they realise that that is not the case, most of them should be able to cope with actually taking notice of remembering the whole number. If not then, the Editor's point as follows is spot on: > At some point one has to draw the line and say nothing more can be done > for the dumbos of the world. Of all the things going on in the US telephone system, the addition of new toll-free codes is one of the least difficult to understand or cope with. Craig Macbride URL: http://www.bf.rmit.edu.au/~craigm ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #61 *****************************