Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA06565; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 09:10:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 09:10:05 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703111410.JAA06565@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #63 TELECOM Digest Tue, 11 Mar 97 09:10:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 63 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion (David Fraser) Re: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion (Nils Andersson) Re: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion (J. Oppenheimer) People's Stupidity (was Marketers With 800 Numbers Fears) (Joseph Singer) Re: USR 56k Modems and CODECs (David Richards) Re: USR 56k Modems and CODECs (Eric Ewanco) Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving (M. Deignan) Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving (John Weeks III) Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving (Dick DeYoung) Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving (lr@digex.net) Re: Dialing *70 on Non-Call-Waiting Equipped Line (Nils Andersson) Re: Dialing *70 on Non-Call-Waiting Equipped Line (Ed Ellers) Re: NYNEX Confirms 646 For Manhattan (Linc Madison) 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: David Fraser Subject: Re: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 16:18:26 -0800 Organization: NBTel Judith Oppenheimer wrote: > The phone industry created the 888 prefix last year, with the pool of > 7.71 million available 800 numbers quickly running out. In January > the Clinton administration's new budget proposed raising $700 million > by auctioning off 888 numbers -- an idea that had also cropped up last > year but withered amid opposition by business groups. > The Federal Communications Commission, which would administer the > auction if it is approved by Congress, says such a sale is simply an > equitable way to distribute something in short supply. "Auctions are > a good way to assign scarce resources," an FCC staffer says. Hmmm, what about good ol' Canada. Don't we share this 888 code? Seems to me we just went through an expensive PR campaign telling Canadians all about 888. Let's see ... Canada has approximately 10% the population of the US. So do we get $70 million? Regards, Dave Fraser (jdfraser@nbtel.nb.ca) ------------------------------ From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Subject: Re: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion Date: 10 Mar 1997 18:38:11 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In article , Judith Oppenheimer writes: > But don't expect the world of toll-free numbers to get less confusing > anytime soon. The phone industry expects the pool of available 888 > numbers to dry up over the next year. It is already planning a third > toll-free code, 877, which would be introduced in April 1998. The best long-term solution (other than letting people hang themselves, which has a lot to say for itself) is to use a larger chunk of 88X space, thus toll free numbers would be e.g 888+, 887+,. 886+ etc. Then, the advertisers could think of the last EIGHT digits as their number, and could advertise TOLL FREE 88 TAKEOVER or whatever. Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Mar 1997 14:05:25 -0500 From: J. Oppenheimer Reply-To: j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net Organization: ICB Toll Free News Subject: Re: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion craig@rmit.edu.au wrote: (Craig MacBride) wrote: > The problem the US has is the people who think that any toll-free > number must start with 800. Yes, Craig, that is the essence of the brand. Exactly the primary argument for separate toll-free domains (800 for commercial, 888 for pagers, etc.) The 800 brand serves businesses best because it's the most responsive and reliable consumer response trigger. Which generates more carrier traffic revenue. And obviously, consumers love it. That's not a "problem", it's an achievement. A rare everybody-wins success. It's not only a US brand, but a global one. Why do you think the ITU insisted on 800 for the global toll-free (universal freephone) code? Responding to comments by TELECOM Digest Editor: Pat, first, your argument is based on the presumption that toll-free numbers are the same in value (or lack thereof) as other telephone numbers. Also, that all toll-free numbers are equal to each other. Finally, even with local portability coming to fruition, that those numbers are equal to each other. Misguided, and with all due respect, erroneous in the real world. The real issue is ownership. Users, carriers, and government, treat numbers as property. Valuable property. Portability law already grants control of that "property" to users - you. So who do you want owning your "property"? Carriers? Government? or You? Judith ICB TOLL FREE NEWS - 800/888/global800 news, analysis, advice. Judith Oppenheimer, Publisher - http://www.thedigest.com/icb/ mailto:j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net, mailto:icb@juno.com 1 800 THE EXPERT, ph 212 684-7210, fx 212 684-2714 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Mar 1997 22:29:21 -0800 From: Joseph Singer Subject: People's Stupidity (was Marketers With 800 Numbers Fears) TELECOM Digest Editor Noted: > 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. At some point one has to > draw the line and say nothing more can be done for the dumbos of the > world. Now many months into area 847 there are still a large number > of people who do not understand to dial a '1' at the start of a north > suburban Chicago number, driving the subscribers of the VIRginia-7 > exchange batty. [snip] > Numerous subscribers to 312-773 numbers and 773-847 numbers feel > Ameritech should pick some other area codes so they won't be hassled > so much by people trying to reach area 773 and 847. Wouldn't it have been a lot wiser for Ameritech to protect those codes and *not* use 847 or 773 as NPAs? I thought when NPAs were assigned especially the new codes that are similar to CO prefixes that one of the things that was to be considered was not assigning codes that were the same as a prefix in either the old or the new code? I'll grant you that a simple thing like following dialing instructions should be something that most people should be able to do, but experience shows that people don't always behave in the way that you'd think they would. Joseph Singer Seattle, Washington, USA dov@accessone.com http://www.accessone.com/~dov/ PO Box 23135, Seattle WA 98102 USA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The problem is we do not have the luxury of 'protecting' certain codes any longer. We have precious few three digit combinations around here which are not in use one or more places in the several area codes in northern Illinois. Exactly who should be protected? Why them and not some other exchange? Debates about where to draw area code lines, whether to overlay or use geographic areas in assigning codes, and which codes to use could and frequently do go on endlessly. No one is ever satisfied. I doubt that most of the new area codes in the past two years would have been assigned (as of yet) if the haggling had been allowed to continue in each community. It is true that people do not always behave 'in the way you'd think they would'; so exactly where is the line to be drawn between trying to anticipate and accomodate people's behavior versus the rest of the world getting tied up in technological knots as a result? Protecting codes was a wonderful thing back in the 1950's, and some people are unaware that in those days not only were area codes always of the 'one or zero as the middle digit' variety, telcos did not even assign the same prefixes or exchanges *in adjoining states*. Really! That is, if area code 312 had prefix 222, then area codes touching it on any side (i.e. 414, 815, 219) did *not* have '222'. Why? So that people could dial across area code boundaries (if they lived on a state line for example) using only seven digits. Whiting, Indiana had 219-659 so therefore 312 had no 659 until finally about 1983 or so it was assigned to Cellular One Chicago as their very first cellphone exchange. When 'seven digit community dialing' had to be mostly elim- inated -- number combinations were just getting too tight -- people fussed and fretted about how it was a trick by telco to increase the number of long-distance calls we would have to make. People did not like losing four-digit community dialing either, but somehow they came around. My thinking now is an independent agency should assign all telephone numbers, period. Do not bother to ask anyone what they think about the number they were given; just hand out the numbers on request without allowing any picking or choosing. If Mrs. Luddite gets frustrated and never can seem to reach her neighbors because she refuses to follow simple dialing instructions, that's tough. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dr@ripco.com (David Richards) Subject: Re: USR 56k Modems and CODECs Date: 9 Mar 1997 09:38:10 GMT Organization: Ripco Communications Inc. In article , Tom Crofford wrote: > 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. I'm no electrical engineer, but have much experience with ISDN and modems, so I'll try to explain the difficulty. If the ISP has a channelized T1 or ISDN line at their end terminating directly into a DSP, and the connection into the switch is digital and the telco trunk is digital, then the entire circuit EXCEPT for the "home run" from the switch to the modem is digital. Thus the ISP can send digital data down the line and know it will stay clean right up until it hits the CODEC at the switch that feeds the end user. The D-A conversion there and the analog loop to the user will introduce some uncertaintity, so the user's analog modem and the digital hardware at the ISP negotiate to determine what the digital data "looks like" after the conversion to analog. If a second conversion is done (analog modems on each end, an ISP with a 'line side' channelized T1, etc), then the extra noise and encoding errors are enough to keep them from finding symbols that are still recognizable after the two conversions. 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 (773) 665-0065 !Free Usenet/E-Mail! ------------------------------ From: Eric Ewanco Subject: Re: USR 56k Modems and CODECs Date: 09 Mar 1997 14:00:20 -0500 Organization: Xyplex, Inc. Tom Crofford writes: > 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. It's not so much that they limit the number of D-A translations to one as they limit the number of A-D translations to zero, because, presumably, of the bandpass filter that narrows the frequency response to 3500 Hz. The consequence of this of course is that you can only have one D-A conversion, since if you have more than one, you'd need a concomitant A-D conversion. The key restriction is that there can't be any A/D conversions because it introduces too much signal corruption. Eric Ewanco eje@world.std.com Software Engineer, Xyplex Networks Littleton, Mass. ------------------------------ From: kd1hz@anomaly.ideamation.com (Michael P. Deignan) Subject: Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving Date: 9 Mar 1997 09:26:22 -0500 Organization: The Ace Tomato Company In article , Paul Smith wrote: > Banning cellular phones in cars because they may distract drivers is > crazy. How about banning the eating of fast food meals while driving > too? After all it is really hard to eat a big Mac while steering. > How about banning smoking while driving? I wouldn't want anybody > taking their eyes off the road to light a cigar. Banning all > conversations while driving would also help. Drivers need to focus on > driving. Better yet ... How about we ban >women drivers, SWWV53D@prodigy.com (Paul Smith) wrote: > Banning cellular phones in cars because they may distract drivers is > crazy. How about banning the eating of fast food meals while driving > too? After all it is really hard to eat a big Mac while steering. It already is illegal -- it is called "inattentive driving". Many states are considering an explicit ban on handheld cellular phones for drivers since it forces them to take one hand off of the wheel. Wisconsin already has such a ban in place -- however, a driver is permitted to use a cellular phone that has both auto-dial and a hands-free mode. Back in the good old days of IMTS phones, I had one customer who owned a sand and gravel operation. He used the phone to take and place calls when he was at a jobsite with no telephones. One day while driving down the road, he looked down to dial a phone number (this was a rotary dial IMTS phone). When he finished dialing, he looked up, just in time to see a stopped car five feet in front of his bumper. A driver was stopped in the driving lane to make a left turn. My customer never had time to step on the breaks, and hit the stopped car full force at 60+ MPH. He was banged up badly, and was never quite the same mentally. The driver he hit, a middle aged woman with several children, was paralyzed. John A. Weeks III (612) 891-2382 jweeks@visi.com Newave Communications FAX 953-4289 http://www.visi.com/~jweeks ------------------------------ From: deyoung@frontiernet.net (Dick DeYoung) Subject: Re: NY Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving Date: Sun, 09 Mar 1997 14:26:07 GMT Organization: Frontier Internet Rochester N.Y. (716)-777-SURF On Thu, 6 Mar 97 20:38 PST, lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) wrote: >> From: Curtis R. Anderson >> 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. > Greetings. All the recent bruhaha on this topic is the result of a > single study. Not only did the authors of the study point out that > their results were the same for handheld and "no-hands" cell phones, > but they also went to great lengths to emphasize that they did not > feel their results should be used as evidence to attempt banning of > in-motion car cell phone use. > Statistics can be tricky things. The authors of the study tried to be > clear about them; it would be unfortunate if their results were > misinterpreted by the legislative process. This is nothing more than political posturing from a NY Senator of the minority party in the Senate. ------------------------------ From: lr@access5.digex.net (Sir Topham Hatt) Subject: Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving Date: 10 Mar 1997 20:14:38 GMT Organization: Intentionally Left Blank Curtis R. Anderson (gleepy@intelligencia.com) wrote: > The Legislature is using those studies which suggest high accident > risk while the driver is talking on a cellular phone. Of course the study showed that hands-free wasn't any better safety wise than held-held phones. ------------------------------ From: nilsphone@aol.com Subject: Re: Dialing *70 on Non-Call-Waiting Equipped Line Date: 10 Mar 1997 18:47:45 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In article , vanvalk@auburn. campus.MCI.net (R. Van Valkenburgh) writes: >> The way I look at it, dialing *70 says I want no Call-Waiting during >> the current call, I HAVE NO Call-Waiting AT ALL on the line, so there >> is no reason NOT TO ACCEPT the *70 and just return a dial tone . . . > I agree. But maybe we should be thankful that the local telco hasn't > decided to offer the disable call waiting feature as one of those > optional features that you can get when not subscribed for $0.25 per > call. Actually, GTE does charge for the disable call waiting. The logical next step would be to charge a buck a month for NOT bombing out on a non-CW/nonDCW line when *70 is dialled. (actually 70# with GTE, necessary to distinguish that you are in GTE territory and you have to remember who is in charge). They never thought of that one, YET. (And yes, I had the same original problem with my line bombing when I got a dedicated fax/modem line). Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Mar 1997 16:05:51 -0500 From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Dialing *70 on Non-Call-Waiting Equipped Line R. Van Valkenburgh (vanvalk@auburn.campus.MCI.net) wrote: > I agree. But maybe we should be thankful that the local telco > hasn't decided to offer the disable call waiting feature as one of > those optional features that you can get when not subscribed for > $0.25 per call. If you think that's bad, here's a really ridiculous one. Ever notice how some phone companies' directories contained a notice saying that the directory remained the property of the telco, and no cover not provided by the telco could be attached to the directory? I'd always assumed that this was to make sure that the ads on the back cover would remain visible, but a look in a Louisville phone book from the 1950s provided the answer. It turns out that Southern Bell (and perhaps other RBOCs at the time) would *rent* a plastic cover to you! The covers were available in the same decorator colors as Western Electric telephones, and rented for ten cents a month each. So by their logic, putting another cover on "their" directory was as heinous as buying your own extension phones. ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: NYNEX Confirms 646 For Manhattan Date: Sun, 09 Mar 1997 11:14:44 -0800 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! In article , ulmo@Q.Net wrote: > [personal experiences and views of splits/overlays in NYC/LA/etc.] One example I found quite interesting of failing to list the area code on a sign where it was clearly needed was a road sign on Interstate 280 in Palo Alto, California. Palo Alto is in Santa Clara County, most of which, including the county seat of San Jose, is in area code 408, but Palo Alto and a few other communities (Los Altos, Mountain View) are in area code 415, soon to be area code 650. The sign said something like "CARPOOL INFO 297-xxxx", but that number, dialed from the location where the sign was posted, would not reach the county transit agency; the sign needed to specify the area code. Of course, there is a bit of an excuse of newness involved. After all, this was in the mid- to late 1980's, so Palo Alto had been in a different area code from San Jose for less than thirty years. ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: WMAQ Radio (670-AM in Chicago) is heard all over the midwest and certainly quite strongly in the five or six area codes making up northern Illinois/Indiana. For years they have run their 'cellular opinion poll' sponsored by Cellular One. They ask some simple-minded question usually about politics and invite listeners to respond 'from your cellular phone by dialing 'star Y for yes, or star N for no'. "From other phones you can reach us at 591-67-YES or 591-67-NO." This only worked from area 312 however. After 847 and 630 were cut in several months ago (to say nothing of 219 and 815 which have been around for years) I called the producer of that little segment which airs several times each day and suggested maybe they ought to begin using an area code. "Oh," he said, "I had never thought about that; gosh maybe that would be a good idea." Starting a day or so later they were doing it. Rather than caving in to people, try and educate them to provide their number correctly and dial other numbers correctly. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #63 *****************************