Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id HAA00668; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 07:36:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 07:36:29 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703111236.HAA00668@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #62 TELECOM Digest Tue, 11 Mar 97 07:36:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 62 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Old 900-NNX Prefixes and Local "Choke" Prefixes (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Choke Prefixes (was 900-NNX Geographic Assignments) (Stanley Cline) Re: More Public Meetings Set On Proposed 209 Area Code Changes (Dave Close) Need Suggestions on Cleaning up US/International Phone Lists (Rick Strobel) Re: IBM Problem With Area Code 240? (John Cropper) "Watson, Come Here. I Want You!" (Mark J. Cuccia) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 14:34:40 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Old 900-NNX Prefixes and Local "Choke" Prefixes Several people have mentioned that _some_ (but not all) of the 1970's era _geographic_ 900-NNX code assignments used the same numerical NNX for the local "choke" prefix. Greg Monti quotes the two 900-NNX codes for New York City (NPA 212) from the list, and compares 212-985 and 212-955, 'One matched. One not'. But isn't (wasn't) 212-999 also a local 'choke' prefix in the New York City area? Or could it now be 718-999? I remember _attempting_ to place collect calls (from payphones in New Orleans) to New York City's local "Dial-a-Joke" back in my High School days in the 1970's, and the number was 212-999-3838. The operator would always REFUSE to place collect calls to ANY 212-999-xxxx number. I was told that there was a note in the operator's position bulletin stating that numbers with the 212-999 prefix were, while not 'free', were not to be 'billable' (as a third-party _billing_ number or to be called collect). I also seem to remember other 'dial-a-something' high-volume incoming services in New York City back then with 212-999-xxxx numbers. The old 900-NNX list (as others mention) doesn't _completely_ correspond to many of the "POTS" geographic NPA-NNX 'choke' codes used in each city. In the list I posted, 900-260 terminated in Phoenix AZ (NPA 602). The listing I posted was from late 1977 or early 1978. I don't know for certain, but I think that (602)-260 was/is the Phoenix AZ local "choke" prefix. However, in 1979, New Orleans started up a local "choke" prefix for calling radio station 'high-volume' contest/request/talk lines. It was (still is) (504)-260, the same NNX used by Phoenix AZ as their incoming 900-NNX. (Also note that in the 1970's list, New Orleans did _not_ have an incoming 900-NNX code). Depending on the type of interface the radio station uses (i.e. if it is on a 'basic' multi-line hunt key system vs. a PBX), you can sometimes bypass the "choke" translations and dial directly to a 'geographic' local telephone number to reach the radio or TV station call-in line. The way the "choke" code is used for most of the New Orleans area relies on routing through one of two "choke" code _tandems_. All (504)-260-xxxx numbers route to either the "Mid-City" central office (504-48x) or "Main-1AESS" office (504-52x/59x/etc). Every office has (limited) 260 trunks over to "Mid-City" or "Main-1A". The dialed 260-xxxx number is translated in "Main-1A" or "Mid-City", to some local NXX-XXXX number in the actual geographic neighberhood where the radio/TV station is physically located. The last four digits of the translated number do _NOT_ necessarily correspond to the 260's last four digits. The call then routes to that geographic neighberhood central office switch, and the translated 'geographic' number usually has 'rotary' or multi-line hunt. Of course, most radio stations are physically located in the Central Business District, which is served by the "Main" office, and there is usually one switch less to route through. So, if you can determine the translated number (such as having a DJ-friend or one of the radio station's 'board-op's' call _you_ from their talk lines, if you have Caller-ID or can get a 'quote-back on *69/1169), you can then usually _bypass_ the "choke" routing and translation, and dial _directly_ to the first (or hunted) 'geographic POTS' numbers of the radio or TV station's call-in lines. Some radio/TV stations might use a PBX, even for their talk/contest/request call-in lines. "Choke" routing and translation arrangements for PBX's will vary, and you might not be able to successfully 'directly' dial the translated number into their PBX and reach the call-in talk/request/contest line. In such non-successful situations, you _always_ seem to reach their PBX busy or re-order signal. Now, as for the old (circa 1970's) 900 service, on the Saturday afternoon twenty years ago when Carter had his call-in, I did try to reach 900-242-1611. I wasn't at home at the time of the broadcast, so I tried calling from payphones. Back then, there was no such thing as a COCOT (private payphone). All payphones were those owned by the telephone company (those really WERE the good old days ). At the time, New Orleans' area payphones were not "loop-start dialtone-first" -- you _HAD_ to drop a local coin-rate deposit into the payphone to get dialtone (i.e. "ground-start coin-first". And Louisiana was still at a nickel (5-cents) for local calls until January 1979. So, after dropping in my nickel, getting dialtone, and then dialing 1-900-242-1611, I was connected to the TSPS office. My nickel was returned, and then a Bell System operator came on the line, "Operator, may I help you?" (no 'branding' necessary, as all operators were those of the "one telephone company"). Since I understood the Carter Call-in to be free to the caller, I asked for my call to be completed. She would say something about needing to check the coin-rate to 900-242, but then she said something like "Oh, you're trying to call the President's radio call-in. One moment please, and I'll try to complete your call." Of course, I always got the "All circuits are busy now. Please try your call again later." A 'switch-ID' of 504-2L or something was mentioned at the recording, so I was being 'blocked' right at the New Orleans 'toll' switch. In the Area Code historical and chronological information in the Telecom Archives, 900 was 'reserved/assigned' to 'mass-calling' purposes circa 1970/71. The first time I ever saw it was around 1975/76 in a numerical list of area codes, supplied to me by South Central Bell. All it said was "900 Mass-Calling". I could never seem to get a definitive explanation of WHAT that meant from my requests of an operator or the business office. I did try actual random dialing of 1-900-NNX-XXXX numbers (mostly from payphones) at the time (in the mid 1970's, and prior to the first Carter call-in). Most of the time, after my nickel would come back, I would receive a recording, either "your call cannot be completed as dialed", "your call did not go through", or "all circuits are busy now". Every now and then, after my nickel came back, an operator would come on the line, and request something like $3.00 to $5.00 for the first three minutes. I would always tell her that I didn't have enough change on me at the moment. Maybe I had stumbled upon a 'valid' 900-NNX code (one of the 'geographically assigned' codes indicated on the list I posted), and the rate quoted was what the coin first three minutes was to the 'translated' NPA for that location. Around 1980 or so, AT&T (and Trans-Canada) began to reformat 900 to be national "Dial-It" pay-per-call info-services. There was a MUCH smaller list of 900-NXX codes in use for national "Dial-It". Some of the 900-NNX codes indicated on the list I posted had been 'withdrawn' around 1980, and now that Bellcore assigns 900-NXX codes to requesting carriers/entities/info-providers, some old circa-1970's 900-NNX codes might now be used by other (non-AT&T or non-Stentor) entities. Also, in the early 1980's, local prefix 976 was activated in most area codes and parts of the US (and now Canada) for _local_ "Dial-It" pay-per-call info-services. But for the most part, radio/TV and other 'local' mass-calling lines continue to use the 'traditional/local' choke prefixes, which don't carry the rate stigma that 976 does. Of course, local calls to radio/TV station "choke" numbers from payphones do carry the local coin rate, local measured rate or message units probably apply to such non-coin local lines, as any possible tariffed toll charges would apply when calling a "choke-prefix" number from outside of that city's local calling area. One final comment ... in my earlier posting, I mentioned that there were instances of people not dialing the (1)-900 before 242-1611 during the 1977 Carter call-in. People in the local areas who had 242-1611 in each area code were getting call-after-call of people asking them if they were the White House, President Carter or Walter Cronkite. There is a 242 prefix in the 504 area code, in New Orleans, and the people in the New Orleans East area with (504)-242-1611 were shown on local TV news that night in a taped news segment, getting such misdialed calls. Prior to 1982 or so, Toll-Free Inward WATS 800 had a _rigid_ geographic numbering and routing pattern. All inTRA-state (and in Canada, inTRA-province) toll-free 800 customers were assigned numbers of the 800-NN2-xxxx format. All sixty-four NN2's were available for re-use, from state-to-state (and province-to-province). It was possible to have multiple customers with an indentical 800-NN2-xxxx number, each within their own state, for inTRA-state inward toll-free service. So, I wonder how many customers who had inTRA-state (only) toll-free service with the number 800-242-1611 in their respective states were receiving numerous calls that Saturday in March 1977, where the caller was trying to reach the Carter call-in. Since the 900 number was arranged to be free to the caller, some people might have thought the call-in was _800_-242-1611, and since the '8' is just one (rotary dial) finger-hole or touchtone button away from the '9', some of those wrong-number calls might have been actual slips of the finger rather than the caller thinking that the call-in number was _800_ instead of _900_. 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 ------------------------------ From: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Choke Prefixes (was 900-NNX Geographic Assignments) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 05:03:59 GMT Organization: C3 Services Co., Chatt., TN Reply-To: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com On Thu, 6 Mar 1997 22:27:32 EST, Wlevant@aol.com wrote: > It appears that at least some of the 900-NNX combinations match the > LEC's own NPA-NNX "choke" service assignments for the same city. At least not in Atlanta; the current choke prefix seems to be [404|770]-741 (area code not required in 404/770 area) , but the 900 NNX is 540. 540 may have been used in the past, but I don't think so. > At least in Philadelphia, the "choke" exchange was actually served > out of a "regular" exchange; there, it was 215-564. You could reach In Chattanooga, the choke prefix [423-642, 0xxx and 9xxx only; the other numbers now serve some PBX and Centrex groups] feeds numerous CO's, including at least one that is *not* operated by BellSouth, but is in the local calling area. The prefix is set up out of the Downtown #5ESS, with remote-call-fwd to another (non-pub) number. The two cellular carriers here (GTE and BellSouth Mobility) have pointed their star-numbers for radio stations, etc. to the *choke* numbers *rather than* to a standard number; calls from cellular customers are lumped with other calls from the CO serving the carrier's MTSO. (For GTE, the Downtown CO; for BSMobility, the Airport/Brainerd CO) There doesn't appear to be any "choke" capability in the MTSOs themselves, meaning that both air channels and MTSO->LEC trunks are still tied up handling calls -- most of them to reorder busies. (With SS7 capability coming to MTSOs, at least the MTSO->LEC problem should go away.) I worry that a flood of calls from cellphone customers could jam cell sites and block other calls (not 911, as 911 takes precedence over other calls), even possibly from *other* cell sites. The constant advertising of star-codes for radio contests doesn't help much, either. > 3) Connect, as in number 2, except instead of the faint busy, a somewhat > muted ringing tone ... and hopefully, the money/records/tickets. Even in the fully-#5E/DMS Chattanooga area, answered calls to the choke prefixes appear to be somewhat muted compared to other calls -- apparently a direct result of the way remote-call-fwd is set up. (I'd go so far as to say I don't think BellSouth even uses SS7 to route the choke numbers' RCF, i.e., the calls go SS7 to the 642 CO, but MF is used from the 642 CO to the radio station's CO. Of course, I don't know this for sure.) > was somewhat less sophisticated than the ESS, and that the crossbar > switch allowed more calls to actually reach the "choke" exchange than > the ESS did. Does anyone out there have a comment, explanation or > similar experience to report? Could be either the way the XB was set up vs. the ESS, or the fact that the ESS would have a faster "response time" than the XB (electronic much faster than mechanical.) When my area converted from an XB to a #5E back in '87, the chance of getting through to a contest-line was *slightly* less, but when SS7 was introduced in the local network (late 1991), the chances dropped down to virtually nil. (The 423-642 [then 615-642] choke NNX was served out of a #1AESS until around 1991, then was converted to a #5E.) TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > The best the kids can do now-days is if they have a two line phone > with three-way calling on each line and a 'conference' button on the > phone instrument then I presume with some effort and practice they > can bring up four parties all at one time or even five parties if The volume on such a connection tends to be less than optimal. :( Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! dba C3 Services Company, Chattanooga, TN mailto:roamer1@pobox.com ** http://www.pobox.com/~roamer1/ From: line changed so I get NO SPAM! See http://www.vix.com/spam/ ------------------------------ From: dave@compata.compata.com (Dave Close) Subject: Re: More Public Meetings Set On Proposed 209 Area Code Changes Date: 9 Mar 1997 22:00:26 -0800 Organization: Network Intensive The Stockton Record Originally published Friday, March 7, 1997 Public put on hold in area-code debate Industry debates dialing up new number for Valley By Bill Cook Record Staff Writer MODESTO -- The telephone industry disconnected public and press Thursday as representatives from San Joaquin County and its cities and dozens of other entities argued over keeping the 209 telephone area code. Citizens and reporters were barred from the session in a Modesto motel by members of a telecommunications-industry panel. The panel ultimately will recommend to the California Public Utilities Commission whether the 209 code should be replaced in the upper or lower San Joaquin Valley. Riding on the PUC's decision are hundreds of thousands of business and residential phone numbers in San Joaquin County alone. A new area code would mean substantial costs to reprogram computer telephone databases, reprint letterhead and business cards, and make other changes. In October, the industry-panel members said that although no decision had been made, their initial proposal had the area generally north of the Madera County line retaining 209. Since then, there have been reports of heavy pressure from Fresno County and other southern areas for reversing this plan. In recent weeks, a letter-writing campaign from residents and businesses in the north has begun. About 3.9 million telephone lines are in use in both zones, with 52 percent in the northern area, said Pacific Bell representative Michael Heenan. In barring observers from Thursday's meeting, Bruce Bennett, director of the California Code Administration industry panel, explained: "We've found that letting the press and public in impedes progress as far as people frankly giving us their views." Bennett's assistant, H. Douglas Hescox, California Area Code Relief coordinator, said: "With the press attending, there's always a lot of posturing," Some three dozen officials from the state and San Joaquin, Amador, Calaveras, Stanislaus, Tuolumne and Mariposa counties were scheduled to attend the session, although their names were not immediately available. Bennett indicated that the attendees included elected officials -- city council members, county supervisors, school trustees -- and appointed representatives -- city managers, county administrators and chambers of commerce officials. Bennett dismissed arguments that the public has an inherent right to know what its elected representatives are saying on its behalf on any issue. He said a court reporter had been hired to record the 2 1/2-hour discussion and that anyone interested in what was said could buy a copy of the transcript. He said it should be done in a week but that he did not know what the cost might be. A similar private meeting with government representatives from Madera, Fresno, Kings and Tulare counties will be held March 27 in Fresno. Hescox said he does not think the closed-door session violates the Brown Act, a state law passed to discourage secrecy in government. He stressed that no votes were to be taken at the Modesto or Fresno meetings. However, another meeting of government representatives from the entire area is be held April 9 in Merced, and printed memos say a vote is to be taken at that time. The meeting is not listed as public. The memos say in part: "Since the ... meeting in April will be the only meeting at which voting will take place, if you cannot attend, please send a representative (proxy) empowered to participate in decision-making." Bennett insisted that his panel will consider opinions from the general public as well as those of the government representatives. He said the public is being kept informed through a series of public meetings and through advertising. Additional public meetings are scheduled for March 27 in Fresno -- an evening session after the private meeting in the afternoon -- for April 17 in Visalia and for April 18 in Modesto. Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke ------------------------------ From: rstrobel@infotime.com (Rick Strobel) Subject: Need Suggestions on Cleaning up Phone Number Lists Date: Tue, 11 Mar 97 08:57:34 GMT Organization: InfoTime, Inc. How can I make sense out of these lists of international phone numbers? The data entry is inconsistent. Some numbers are prepended with 011- others are not. I can't tell what country each number is for, it's usually not included with the database. How can I figure out the country for each phone number? The main problem is that country codes can be one, two or three digits. Are there some rules for this, i.e. the first two digits of a three digit country code would never be the same as the country code that is ONLY two digits. Once you have the country code figured out, are there any rules for how many digits should be in a phone number for that country? Like in the US, all phone numbers have 10 digits. This would be most important for the major European and Asian countries since that's where most of the businesses are located that we're trying to reach. I understand that from the US you don't dial the zero in the city code. For example 011-44-071- would not be the right way to dial a UK number, instead you'd dial 011-44-71-. Another tip is that you can put a # at the end of the number to signal the switches that you've dialed all the digits you're going to dial so it can begin processing the call. Ideally, I'd like to find a source where I could download a table of information that I could use to build this type of program in Access. Any ideas on where I could get such data either free, or cheap, or maybe even reasonably priced? I have a similar problem with US phone number lists. What Id like to find is a data source that would list all the US area codes, or NPA/NXX codes. Including all the new ones. Using this data I'd build a scrubber that would check and correct any numbers that may have had area code changes. As part of the data Id like to have time zone and city/state info. Im going to get info on an offering called Zip-Phones from Pareto Corporation. I dont know if its a product or a service, or if its reasonably priced. It seems like this kind of data ought to be downloadable from the net for free or next to free. Anyone have any ideas, comments or suggestions on this matter? Thanks in advance. Rick Strobel | | InfoTime Fax Communications | Fax-on-Demand | 502-426-4279 | & | 502-426-3721 fax | Fax Broadcast | rstrobel@infotime.com | Services | http://www.infotime.com | | ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Re: IBM Problem With Area Code 240? Date: Sun, 09 Mar 1997 10:06:17 -0500 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > 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. > 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. Hold on ... 301 is in a PERMISSIVE 10-digit situation NOW. All areas of 301 should be in the process of finialization for mandatory 10D HNPA-L on 5/1, but permissive 10D **should** work now. A call to Bell Atlantic, alerting them to the fact that your switch will NOT permit "ten-number number dialing" (use THEIR terminology, it sometimes helps) is strongly advised. If/when you do make the call, try to get a timetable from them as to 'repair time'. John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 Legacy IS, Networking & Comm. Solutions 609.637.9434 P.O. Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 Unsolicited commercial e-mail is subject mailto:jcropper@lincs.net to a fee as outlined in the agreement at http://www.lincs.net/ http://www.lincs.net/spamoff.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 09:02:07 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: "Watson, Come Here. I Want You!" The words "Watson, come here. I want you!" were said by Alexander Graham Bell on 10 March 1876, 121 years ago. Interestingly, no operator nor central office was involved, nor any telephone number, nor 'exchange names'. So Dr. Bell couldn't have reached a 'wrong number'. 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 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There have been numerous cartoons on this at one time or another claiming otherwise such as one showing Alex Bell listening to a message coming out of his earpiece saying the number he was trying to reach was not in service, and one which told him to deposit ten cents for the first five minutes, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #62 *****************************