Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA11801; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 08:38:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 08:38:04 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703151338.IAA11801@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #65 TELECOM Digest Sat, 15 Mar 97 08:37:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 65 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson North Carolina Area Codes (Jim Jacobs) Book Review: "World Wide Web Journal: Industrial Strength Web" (Rob Slade) Answer Supervision (was Re: 1-800-COMP-USA and Call Waiting) (Mark Cuccia) Re: 1-800-Comp-USA Screws up Call Waiting (W. Halverson) Re: Nostalgia For "Beep" Line (Diamond Dave) Re: Nostalgia For "Beep" Line (Ian Angus) Re: Nostalgia For "Beep" Line (Lee Winson) Another 800 Pay Number (Col. G.L. Sicherman) 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: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 01:01:26 -0500 From: Jim Jacobs Subject: North Carolina Area Codes BellSouth Says North Carolina Area Codes To Double Communications Industry Presents Implementation Options To NCUC RALEIGH, N.C., March 13 /PRNewswire/ -- North Carolina must add three new area codes before the end of next year to meet the demand for telecommunications services, the industry said today. In a letter to the North Carolina Utilities Commission, BellSouth presented the industry's assessment of the need for new codes and options for how they could be implemented. BellSouth sent the letter on the industry's behalf because it is the state administrator of the North American Numbering Plan, the mechanism by which numbers are allocated in the U.S. and Canada. BellCore, a communications research consortium, is the national administrator under the authority of the Federal Communications Commission. The Utilities Commission has oversight responsibility for implementation of new area codes. Across the state, demand has been increasing for communications services. Industry forecasts predict the demand will continue to increase, particularly with the onset of local competition. All three current area codes are running out of prefix codes, the three- digit combinations that are the first part of a seven-digit telephone number. With only 800 prefix codes available per area code, the 704 and 910 area codes will be exhausted in January 1999. The 919 area code will be exhausted in November 1999. Consequently, the industry must take the steps necessary today to assure numbers will be available in the future to meet customers' needs. Discussions within the industry have included local telephone companies, wireless companies, interexchange companies, and companies who plan to compete in the local market. They began discussing the need for new area codes in late 1996 and held two industry-wide meetings in January and February to expand those discussions and attempt to settle on an implementation plan. When a single plan could not be selected, the industry agreed to ask the Utilities Commission for guidance. The Commission is being asked to consider two methods for implementing new area codes in North Carolina, each with advantages and disadvantages. The first is called an overlay. Under this method, a new area code would be assigned to the same geographic area covered by each of the three existing area codes. Current customers would keep their existing area code and seven- digit number. New lines would be assigned to the new area codes. All calls would be dialed using 10 digits, including local calls that are seven-digits today. The second method is called a split, the method used when 910 was created along calling zone, or LATA, boundaries. Under this method, the area served by each of the existing area codes would be divided into two new geographic areas. One of the areas would retain its existing area code, while the other would receive a new area code. Customers in the new area would keep their existing seven-digit number, but would have a new area code. A split would be designed to balance the need to provide adequate capacity for future growth in each area code, with the desire to minimize disruption to customers and the state. An example of the split method, presented at the industry meeting in January, would assign: -- 704 to the Charlotte exchange and surrounding communities; -- 910 to, the Greensboro LATA; -- 919 to the Raleigh LATA and exchanges in Johnston and Chatham counties currently served by 910; -- a new area code to the Asheville LATA and portions of the Charlotte LATA outside the Charlotte area; -- a new area code to the Rocky Mount LATA and portions of Carteret and Pamlico counties now served by 919; and -- a new area code to the Wilmington and Fayetteville LATAs, with the exception of the parts of Johnston, Chatham, Carteret and Pamlico counties served by 919. The letter to the Utilities Commission included five changes to this proposal, which were suggested by different companies. The industry has proposed that a plan be approved by June 1, 1997, and new numbers announced by July 1, 1997. The first new area code would go into service around Dec. 15, 1998. The numbers themselves must be assigned by BellCore submission of an approved plan. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 10:54:30 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "World Wide Web Journal: Industrial Strength Web" BKW3JI14.RVW 961116 "World Wide Web Journal: Building an Industrial Strength Web", Rohit Khare, 1996, 1-56592-211-5, U$24.95/C$35.95 %E Rohit Khare khare@w3.org %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 1996 %G 1-56592-211-5 %I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. %O U$24.95/C$35.95 800-998-9938 707-829-0515 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com %P 250 %T "World Wide Web Journal: Building an Industrial Strength Web" This issue looks at, and celebrates, new developments that enhance the ability, and flexibility, of the Web to deal with varied, difficult, and challenging problems. HTTP, the HyperText Transfer Protocol foundation for the Web, has just reached version 1.1. (Yes, while Netscape and Internet Explorer are at 3.0, and HTML is at 3.2, the basics take a little longer to develop.) This will provide more effective use of network resources. PNG (Portable Network Graphics) is announced as the new "recommended" standard for images, replacing GIF. The work on the PICS (Platform for Internet Content Selection) 1.1 rating system is also reported. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKW3JI14.RVW 961116 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca Ceterum censeo CNA Financial Services delendam esse Please note the Peterson story - http://www.netmind.com/~padgett/trial.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 11:40:08 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Answer Supervision (was Re: 1-800-COMP-USA and Call Waiting) Keith Knipschild wrote: > I was calling 1-800-Comp-USA (1-800-266-7872) today, and listened to > the prerecorded info. There is an option #2 to connect to my local > Store, which I thought was pretty cool ... > But that's not the info; I was UNABLE to Recieve any Call Waiting > calls while I was connected to this 800 number. > Plus I could not even get another DIAL TONE to make a conferenece > call (three-way calling). > What causes this? Is it a national thing? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Usually custom calling features such > as call-waiting and three-way calling are not available when you > place a call until the call has supervised (if it stays within your > local central office) or at least until it leaves your office on > its way to the destination. The theory behind disallowing call-waiting > for (what should be) an interval of a few seconds when you place a > call is that the call-waiting tone would otherwise disrupt your > dialing. > Likewise, you cannot set up a three way call in the middle > of dialing a number. This leads me to believe that for some reason > the 800 number you were dialing is not correctly 'supervising'; your > local central office does not seem to feel the distant end ever > answered the line; consequently it is unwilling to give you back your > custom calling features. Whether this is an overall problem with the > Compu-USA number nationally or some malfunction in your local central > office will have to be detirmined. PAT] Actually, supervising is when the _called_ party returns an answer condition, including billing. Since the called number is an 800 number, the 'suping' for billing would be when 800-COMP-USA's billing would begin by their 800-service provider long distance. I don't know for sure about Call-Waiting these days ... years ago (prior to SS7), you could get a CW-beep on an incoming call, once you had finished dialing _and_ your own central office had 'clicked' you to the outgoing trunk of your outgoing call's set-up. These days, with SS7 signaling, it could be possible that you've 'busied' out your line from any incoming CW-beeps _until_ the called party has answered and 'suped'. I do know that 3-way flashing (in #1AESS exchanges) is disabled _until_ the called party has answered _and_ 'suped' for billing. I don't think that there is a real problem here. It is mentioned that when calling 800-COMP-USA, you have an option to press-2 to connect to your local store. The called 800-COMP-USA number just doesn't 'supe' until you are connected to some _particular_ party or option. It could be a special arrangement that COMP-USA set up with their long-distance company or 800 provider for customer-defined routing options. AT&T began such customized routing option features back in the early-to-mid 1980's for their 800 customers, when the CCIS#6 method of signaling was more fully implemented. I think there were such marketing terms as AT&T Megacom 800 and the like for such routing options. Also, remember that via _many_ carriers (particularly AT&T), if the called end doesn't 'supe' for (possible) billing, you have _no_ forward voicepath. This causes problems when reaching live intercept operators which still exist for rural areas, including in Canada. She will come on the line asking "Special Operator, what number did you dial?" Since you aren't (supposed) to be billed for reaching live intercept operators, it doesn't 'supe'. But you aren't going to be able to be _heard_ by the special intercept operator. Also, non-suping calls (such as reaching busy signals and _particularly_ unanswered rings) placed via long-distance carriers and also locally, from or to digital offices (5ESS, DMS, etc) will 'time-out' after a minute or two. Via AT&T on long-distance, you reach the "Your party is not answering. We're sorry, but your call will be disconnected now. Please try your call again later". Other long distance carriers and local digital switches will time you out to a 'reorder' (fast busy) signal. And then AT&T has those (IMO _intrusive_) services such as "True Messages" and "International Redial" available from certain types of originating lines or call situations. On a non-suping connection, "True Messages" comes in _right_away_ if the called line is busy (but without you hearing an audible busy signal) with "The line is busy. Would you like to leave a message? (for a charge) press #123. The pound button is located ... " On calls which ring for so many rings, "True Messages" cuts out the audible ringing with "AT&T is still trying to complete your call. Would you like to leave a message? (for a charge) press #123 ... " Since many autodialer systems need audible busy to disconnect and redial (as was mentioned in an earlier post), and on 'unanswered after so many rings' calls, since more people have answering machines or forward to voicemail, some of these 'message' services can be more troublesome than the convenience they were intended to provide ... _AND_ they are also _revenue-enhancers_ for the telco/carrier. But "True Messages" has been troublesome in auto-intercept-with-number-referral situations from the called-end LEC: (CALLED-END LEC)- "The number you have reached, NPA-NXX-XXXX, has been changed. The _new_ number is" (audio from called-end LEC disable by AT&T)- "Your party hasn't answered, and AT&T is still trying to complete your call. Would you like to leave a message?"..... (Back to called-end LEC)- "Please make a note of it. Repeat. NPA-NXX-XXXX has changed ... " AT&T's International Redial is something similar. There was no extra charge for it, and I had it for a couple of months. But I've had to have it disabled from my outgoing AT&T handled calls from home. Presently, LEC-provided CLASS feature "Repeat Dial" (*66/1166) works _only_ within the LATA, where proper SS7 is available. But AT&T has "Internatinal Redial", which is similar, but not an SS7 CLASS feature. And it only works on calls to points _outside_ of the US. Most of my 'non-US' calls are to Canada. It is rare to get a busy signal these days on calls to Canada, as most of the Stentor LEC's provide voicemail. But if on an AT&T call to a non-US point one were to get a busy signal (actually, a busy _condition_, as "International Redial" does _not_ let you actually _hear_ an audible busy signal), a recording comes on asking you if you would like AT&T International Redial to take care of the call for you, by entering *234 anytime. ("The star button is located ... ) For about thirty minutes, AT&T will actually try to internally call that party. When (if) they answer during that thirty minute interval, AT&T plays a recording (in a language that the caller has chosen from a touchtone menu) asking the called party to hold, as an caller from the United States is trying to reach them. At the same time, AT&T is trying to ring the caller back. (I wonder what shows up on their Caller-ID box?). I never really had a successful opportunity to try International Redial. I know that there were some people in Canada that I called which do not have an answering machine nor voicemail. AT&T doesn't actually disconnect a non-suping (unanswered) call until about 90 seconds (sometimes two full minutes) have elapsed. But on _unanswered_ rings, "International Redial" would start cutting in with prompts after about three rings. _I_ found those prompts intrusive. And I considered dropping "International Redial" after being told by AT&T that "International Redial" prompting couldn't be restricted to only _busy_ calls but not unanswered ringing. When I first had "International Redial", I was getting the time-of-day and day-of-week in the called location. However, some people were answering and I couldn't hear them at first until the time/day voice cut-off! And since most of my calls were to Canada with time-zone and standard/daylight time being mostly in-sync with the US, I found the time/day announcement intrusive. AT&T _was_ able to keep the redial prompts of "International Redial" but drop the time/day announcement from my service. But what made me have "International Redial" completely removed from my line was a recent call to Canada, where I received a Bell-Canada auto-intercept with new-number-referral. Since that didn't 'supe', I experienced a condition described above. I was receiving the beginning of the intercept recording, but then got the "International Redial" prompt from AT&T, which _obliterated_ Bell-Canada's "the new number is, NPA-NXX-XXXX". Until AT&T can straighten out the SS7 messages to differentiate 'intercept' from 'ring-ring-ring' from actual 'busy', I won't have "International Redial" on my line. 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: bkron@netcom.com (W Halverson) Subject: Re: 1-800-Comp-USA Screws up Call Waiting Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 22:18:20 GMT Keith Knipschild writes: > But that's not the info; I was UNABLE to Recieve any Call Waiting > calls while I was connected to this 800 number. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Usually custom calling features such > as call-waiting and three-way calling are not available when you > place a call until the call has supervised (if it stays within your > local central office) or at least until it leaves your office on > its way to the destination. It used to be that once the call left the local CO, the call was considered "supervised" as far as custom-calling features go. But now, with the advent of SS7, supervision spans CO's. So even if you're calling a distant CO (even overseas in most cases), your local CO won't release the line until the distant party has, in fact, answered the phone. In your case, the system you dialed into is not CompUSA's but, rather, AT&T's -- it is a feature of their switch. It is configured not to supervise until you get connected to a human. ------------------------------ From: bbscorner@juno.com (Diamond Dave) Subject: Re: Nostalgia For "Beep" Line Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 15:58:56 GMT Organization: Diamond Mine Michael N. Marcus wrote: > Does anyone remember talking on the "beep" line? > When I was a student at Lehigh Univ. in Bethlehem, PA in the late 60s, a > common method of flirting and hopefully getting dates, was to call your > own number to get a busy signal, and then talk to other people between > the beeps. > I have no idea how this was discovered, but it was passed-on to each > incoming freshman class. Does anyone know how many callers could be > connected simultaneously to one beep bus? Does it exist on modern CO > switches? Is this "feature" still in use at colleges? Did any of you > find a date or spouse this way? I bet it was either on old CO or and old PBX that put all the "busy" lines all on the same line. Out of curiousity, what time range (what year) did you attend the school? (Trying to find which generation of CO/PBX equipment you're talking about) I very much doubt today that is possible since modern equipment handles this very differently. (Which is a shame since all modern ESS/DMS systems are so generic and predictable - takes the fun out of going to a town you have never been to and checking out their phone system to see how it differs from home.) P.S. I remember that many old CO switches offered the "return ring" when you dialed you own number, got a busy signal, and hung up - your phone rang and it made a nice intercom. I wonder if this is possible with modern ESS/DMS equipment? I heard that telcos are doing this, but for a charge??? (why? Some independents still do this - for free!) Comments? Like to hear them. Dave Perrussel Assistant Webmaster - "thedirectory" of Internet Providers and Web Presence providers URL: http://www.thedirectory.org [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Are there any exchanges left where a call to a busy line sometimes gets one or two rings and *then* it cuts over to a busy signal? I thought those were all gone years ago. We had one very ancient central office in Chicago until sometime in the early 1970s which would do that (Chicago-Wabash) which likewise was unable to return coins in a payphone on an uncompleted call with- out the assistance of a special 'trunk operator' the local operator had to summon on the line. I just recently noticed that the prefix for my cellular phone (847-727) is like that. When I dial a number on 847-727 (always a cell phone) and the line is busy it will ring once before cutting to a busy signal. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ian Angus Subject: Re: Nostalgia For "Beep" Line Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 13:39:45 -0500 Organization: Angus TeleManagement Group Michael N. Marcus wrote: > Does anyone remember talking on the "beep" line? > When I was a student at Lehigh Univ. in Bethlehem, PA in the late 60s, > a common method of flirting and hopefully getting dates, was to call > your own number to get a busy signal, and then talk to other people > between the beeps. When I was a kid in Vancouver in the 1950s, a newspaper article reported that this technique was being used by prostitutes to get dates. I don't know if that was true, but, as a result of the article, dozens of students from Trafalgar Public School (and probably others) used this form of busy signal communication for several weeks. ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: Nostalgia For "Beep" Line Date: 13 Mar 1997 20:10:33 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS I think such "BEEP lines" were common in a lot of cities; we had them in Philadelphia. I suspect such "common talk lines" were an accident fault in the switching office which allowed significant crosstalk to filter around, allowing a conversation to be had. Sometimes it was from an intercept recording to fail to come on. Sometimes it was a line that should've been routed to intercept but wasn't. Perhaps it was an equipment failure that merely hung a call when certain digits were dialed. When this happened and people got "hung in space", kids would figure out the dialing sequence and start using it. Word would spread until the problem was traced and fixed, at least until another one would crop up. ------------------------------ From: sicherman@lucent.com (Col. G.L. Sicherman) Subject: Another 800 Pay Number Date: 13 Mar 1997 18:48:16 GMT Organization: Save the Dodoes Foundation From an article by Steve Giegerich in the Asbury Park Press, 1997-03-12: ... AOL's failure to anticipate the demand caused by its decision to charge a flat $19.95-per-month service may have inconvenienced others. But not [Paul] Eschelbach, who spent December and January crusing the World Wide Web, jabbering away in chat rooms and e-mailing to his heart's content. Eschelbach ... attributes his luck to a tip received when he, too, kept hitting the busy signal barrier. The tip was an 800 telephone number. That night, Eschelbach punched the 800 number into his keyboard and held his breath as the computer dialed. Seconds later - voila! - he was online. Every day and every night for nearly two months, Eschelbach used that number. Never did it fail to put him through. Then, last month, came the payoff. For America Online, that is. A payoff in the amount of more than $1,000 charged to a credit card used by Eschelbach for his AOL account. Thinking a mistake had been made - in America the 800 numbers are synonymous with free - Eschelbach contacted the Internet provider by telephone. When he reached a person, he learned what AOL had neglected to tell him electronically each time he'd signed on via his computer: the 800 number was not toll-free. ... An AOL representative told Eschelbach the warning can be found in the fine print of the service contract. ... Col. G. L. Sicherman sicherman@lucent.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Here again, you *are* getting the call for 'free' where telco is concerned; the charges are being paid by the recipient of the call; in this case AOL. The online service is charging the cost to the caller. Compuserve has always done the same thing with a couple of 800 numbers. The fee is rather reasonable as those things go; I think Compuserve gets 12-15 dollars per hour for the use of their 800 number dialup. This is not a situation where telecom administrators need to worry about charges appearing on their phone account as would be the case with the 800 numbers which connect to phone sex services, etc. Both CIS and AOL apply the charges to the individual member of their service. I really do not feel very sorry for this fellow; from my earliest days as a member of Compuserve (I started used it about 1980, maybe seventeen years ago) I knew about the 800 number as one method of access if it was needed. I think mainly CIS provides theirs dating back several years ago when the Compuserve Network itself was not as widely developed with indials in almost every town in the USA. There might still be a few cases where local CIS members need to use 800 as the least expensive (for them) method of access. For a number of years now, Compuserve has provided me with a limited amount of free access as an Information Provider and I can tell you that access via the 800 number is *not* allowed when on my 'free' CIS account. That would be adding insult to injury would it not; using a free CIS account and asking CIS to pay the phone charges as well. Really, I cannot get to sympathetic or worked up for Mr. Eschelbach. What did he think, that for $19.95 he got unlimited access and that AOL would pay his phone charges also? But with AOL subscribers, it is hard to tell how their minds function sometimes. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #65 *****************************