Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA00267; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:54:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:54:02 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702261354.IAA00267@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #52 TELECOM Digest Wed, 26 Feb 97 08:54:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 52 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson North York Goes to the (Phone) Polls (David Leibold) Bell Canada Seeks Charges For New/"Out of Book" 411 Requests (D. Leibold) Should I Switch to PCS From Traditional Cellular? (Rick Strobel) Wireless Local Telephone Service (Tad Cook) Call Waiting Caller ID Usability Surprises (Starwalker) Who Should Own Phone Numbers? (Judith Oppenheimer) VON/VoIP Industry Conference (von97@pulver.com) Re: URL Correction For Article "SMS Database Searchable?" (telone@shout) Re: SMS Database: Thanks, But No Thanks (Judith Oppenheimer) ISP Common Carrier Status (was Re: Cyber Promotions) (Stanley Cline) Re: Utah Selects 435 (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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 00:42:06 EST From: David Leibold Subject: North York Goes to The (Phone) Polls One of the current controversies in the Toronto area involves the Ontario government's intention to amalgamate the six individual municipalities within Metro Toronto. A "megacity" of Toronto would be created within the 416 area code boundaries. The separate cities within Metro aren't taking their assimilation lying down, thus they have set up polls for the public to register their support or opposition to the megacity plans. North York is doing its referendum via phone. Eligible voters on the provincial electors list were mailed a 10-digit password number and instructions on how to vote via phone. Some elements of the phone vote: - a valid passcode can be used once for a vote (i.e. citizens cannot "vote early and often"). - vote began on 22nd February 8 a.m. local time - vote ends 3rd March 8 p.m. local time - poll number is on the (416) 872.**** "choke" exchange - TTY/TDD number available for those requiring this access (a (416) 296.**** number here) - English, French, Italian, Mandarin and Cantonese language voice prompts are available in the voting system - the vote is Yes or No to "Are you in favour of eliminating the City of North York and all other existing municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto and amalgamating them into a megacity?" - the documentation says the vote can be done "By Touch Tone or Rotary Phone" One concern that might arise with such a vote is that a PIN/passcode number could be traced to a voter and linked to the vote. That depends on the software used in the system. The referendum and passcode package carries a statement that the vote secrecy is guaranteed. {The Toronto Star} did report a glitch with respect to the rotary/pulse dial aspect of the vote (24 Feb 1997). The Star tested the line with rotary dial and found that this option resulted in a message that all lines were occupied and a request to call back later. The Star kept calling for 30 minutes with the same problems each call. I tried the line with pulse dial and did not encounter the occupied line problem. However, there were a few problems trying to get past the language selection (English 1, others 3). Dial-pulsing 1 kept returning to the English/Other voice prompt. After selecting the "other languages", then going back to English (by dial pulsing 9), things seemed to continue. Meanwhile, a North York election official has advised rotary/pulse dial voters to call on touch-tone equipment until the bugs are resolved, which is presumably in the works. Trouble is, many folks have kept rotary lines, especially since Bell Canada has grandfathered the old rotary line rates (at $2.55/month cheaper, as long as one doesn't move or upgrade to tone dialing). (ref: Tor. Star: "Low-tech phones a hang-up in high-tech vote", 24 Feb 1997) David Leibold aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That sort of amalgamation is truly a very frightening thing. Here in the USA from time to time the large inner-city urban areas have tried to pull off that same sort of thing. In particular, the City of Chicago has in the past made overtures to gobble up all the suburbs and used such rationalizations as 'the suburbs should appreciate all the great things Chicago has to offer' and 'the suburbs would not exist if it were not for the main city ...' this latter argument ignoring the fact that some of the suburbs were incorporated earlier than the city itself back in the early 1800's. The way many of us look at it is that Winnetka and Wilmette would provide ninety percent of the tax base and the City of Chicago would use about ninety percent of the revenue. When this insane notion (of a mega-city) was last broached here a few years ago a standing joke was, "and who would govern this new mega- city? The Trustees of the Village of Kenilworth ..." Of course the answer is the Democratic machine in Chicago would run it all. I certainly hope the people in York, Ontario do not let this happen. I cannot imagine they would benefit by being forced to be part of Toronto, albeit that city is much nicer than Chicago. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 00:50:27 EST From: David Leibold Subject: Bell Canada Seeks Charges For New/"Out of Book" 411 Requests Bell Canada, in a continuing quest for new and increased customer charges, has applied to the CRTC (Canadian telecom regulator) to apply directory assistance charges to requests for new or "out of book" number inquiries. Currently, requests for numbers already listed in the local phone book are chargeable; requests for new/changed listings are currently exempt from charges, as are requests for local numbers in exchanges outside the caller's home phone book area. A few other exemptions apply in certain cases ... for the time being at least. An example of "out of book" would be Toronto and Brampton - these exchanges have free local calling, but are covered by different directories. Traditionally, directories covering local exchanges outside a customer's home directory area have been provided free by Bell Canada. However, wording in the tariff application suggests that this may become yet another revenue source for the telco. The CRTC would decide in March whether to approve or reject the tariff application, or perhaps to begin a public notice proceeding. The tariff notice 5941 is posted on the CRTC website at: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/proc_rep/telecom/wo_ntce/tariffe/1997/bell5941.htm David Leibold aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca ------------------------------ From: rstrobel@infotime.com (Rick Strobel) Subject: Should I Switch to PCS From Traditional Cellular? Date: Tue, 25 Feb 97 06:21:05 GMT Organization: InfoTime, Inc. Cheaper rates, Caller-ID, 1st minute inbound free, voice mail, paging (available 4th qtr), longer battery life, et al. These are some of the reasons I'm considering switching to Sprint PCS which just went live in my area (Louisville, KY). Currently I use BellSouth Mobility. I don't travel often at all, so roaming is not a feature I need. Anyone care to comment on PCS versus standard cellular? I'm anxious to sign up for the new service, but would like to understand the pluses and minuses. Any pointers to other net resources on the subject appreciated. Thanks, 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 | | ------------------------------ Subject: Wireless Local Telephone Service Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 23:32:03 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) AT&T, grabbing for local phone customers, thumbs nose at copper wires By DAVID E. KALISH AP Business Writer NEW YORK (AP) -- AT&T Corp. wants to cut the cord on your local phone service. AT&T and other long-distance companies are working on wireless technologies that could provide local phone service nationwide while bypassing traditional copper-wire networks in towns and cities. Customers could use the same cordless phone to call from home, the supermarket and the car -- for only slightly higher rates than wired calls. While the service is at least several years away, the companies are hoping it will help seize local phone business from the Baby Bells and GTE Corp., and save money in the process. But the real winners could be consumers, analysts say. Several regional Bell companies also are working on the new mobile technology, promising competition that could drive down prices. The new phone service could be priced similarly to local calls, said Jeffrey Hines, a telecommunications analyst with NatWest Securities Corp. "That's the whole key." Since the services have yet to be launched, cost savings are a matter of speculation. People familiar with AT&T's plan told The Wall Street Journal on Monday that AT&T may charge as little as $10 a month as a flat fee to let a user of its new service make unlimited local phone calls from home. AT&T declined to comment, but its plans have been discussed for months among industry analysts, who say the largest long-distance company appears positioned to lead the way. The Journal reported that the AT&T technology uses a sophisticated electronic box to tie home telephones to the company's wireless network. The Journal said the box, which is 18-inches square and mounted on the side of a home, would sell for less than $300. "They have a massive outlet, their wireless network, which they are laying awake at night thinking of ways to leverage," said Jeffrey Kagan of Kagan Telecom Associates, an Atlanta-based consulting firm. AT&T isn't alone. Sprint PCS, a joint wireless venture of Sprint Corp., Tele-Communications Inc., Comcast Corp. and Cox Communications, is "looking aggressively" at its own wireless local service, a spokesman said. While MCI Communications Corp. doesn't own a wireless network, it hopes to bypass local telephone wires through a venture with New York-based NextWave, which owns digital wireless licenses in 63 markets. In addition to customers, the Baby Bells could lose the access fees paid by the long-distance companies to lease their copper wires. Regional phone companies played down the threat, saying that the technology has yet to be tested and needs to overcome several roadblocks. Paul Miller, a spokesman for Philadelphia-based Bell Atlantic, questioned whether AT&T's wireless network could handle the extra traffic from local phone customers. Still, the Baby Bells aren't sitting idle. U S West Communications is testing a technology similar to AT&T's that would bypass its own copper-based network, said Peter Mannetti, head of the company's wireless division. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 06:47:48 -0500 From: Starwalker Subject: Call Waiting Caller ID Usability Surprises After hearing about the ability to now get caller-id info on a call-waiting tone, I called my LEC and sure enough, it was available to me, no additional charge over caller-id deluxe which I already have. Sign me up, I said! I pick up a new CID box with call waiting support, and hook it up. Because I have two lines in the house, and the CID box doesn't pass thru the 2nd line, there is no phone plugged into the box. So, I pick up my main line (which has my new Caller ID feature), and make an outgoing call, to my work's voice mail. Then I pick up a second phone, and on my second line, I call my main number. With my main number phone to my ear, I hear the familiar call-waiting tone, and a little extra chirp afterwards. My new Caller-ID box clicks, and ... nothing happens. To make the story short, according to BellAtlantic, Nortel, CIDCO, and BellSouth, Caller ID on Call Waiting only works if you are talking on the phone that is plugged into the Caller ID box. If you are on a different extension, the unit will not log the call. Why? Because you might hear the Caller ID info on the extension, and any noise you make might garble it; the box wants to mute your phone so this won't happen. If it can't, it won't signal the switch to send the CID data. IMHO, this makes the feature 90% useless. Personally, I don't mind hearing a few ascii characters over the phone in order to get the Caller ID info logged. If I talk or make noise and garble the data, then the box can display "Error," and it'll be my fault. But to say that when I'm in another room on another phone, you won't log the Call Waiting ID -- I feel that's a major loss of functionality. I'd love to find a manufacturer who has a box that will log these calls. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 09:22:08 -0500 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net Organization: ICB Toll Free News Subject: Who Should Own Phone Numbers? In Monday's Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition -- February 24, 1997, "The Telecom Deal Is Just a Start", By SCOTT BEARDSLEY, he discusses the World Trade Organization's telecom pact. He writes, in part: Equal access. This is the regulatory term for ensuring that consumers can switch easily to new carriers. How easily consumers can shop around will depend largely on the actual telephone number. Many customers, particularly businesses, are disinclined to change carriers if they have to change telephone numbers. So who should own the number, the operator or the customer? The U.K. regulator decided that number portability will be allowed. But most countries must make decisions not only on the principle, but also on who will pay for the costs of implementing and administering the portability. ------------------ He zooms right in on the focal aspect of the phone number, and the connection between portability and its logical consequence, ownership. Perhaps in light of such an unconnected observation, the concept of open market in phone numbers, both toll-free and others, doesn't seem so heretical. Judith Oppenheimer ICB Toll Free News http://www.thedigest.com/icb/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 13:34:48 -0800 From: Pulver.Com Conferences Reply-To: von97@pulver.com Organization: Pulver.Com - http://www.pulver.com Subject: VON/VoIP Industry Conference April 1 - 3, 1997 Ritz-Carlton Hotel San Francisco, CA ----------------------- a pulver.com conference ----------------------- "The Voice of Telephony on the Net - shaping the VON industry since its inception" SPONSORS: Microsoft * Compaq * Lucent Technologies * Intel April 1-2 April 3 Conference Workshops WHO SHOULD ATTEND? CEOs, Presidents and Managing Directors of companies implementing VON technologies; PTTs, PTOs, RBOCs, LD/IXCs; Internet Access/Service Providers; Telecommunications companies, resellers; software companies; PC manufacturers; Venture Capitalists, Investment Bankers, Management Consultants. KEYNOTES: April 1 & 2 include: Vint Cerf, MCI Telecommunications David Farber, University of Pennsylvania Ron Vidal, MFS Worldcom John Ludwig, Microsoft Mike Po, Netscape Joe Mele, President, elemedia George Favoloro, Compaq Neil Starkey, DataBeam Corp, IMTC Colin Harrison, IBM Zurich Denis Aull, Lucent Technologies Mark Fisher, Pacific Bell Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert BREAKOUTS: April 1 & 2 include: Internet Telephony Forum Review of Current Technology Issues Effect of Internet Telephony on Business NextGen Telephony Fax over IP: Corporate Internet Solutions Patents & Speech Coders Internet Telephony & Consumer Entertainment Business Opportunities Webcasting Streaming Technologies & Trends / Issues Developing Audio/Video Content Realities of Net Broadcasting Content Push/Pull: NextGen of Content Delivery Business Conferencing Regulatory Access Charges Internet Telephony as a Global Norm? Local Loop Alternatives: Promise or Reality? WORKSHOPS - April 3 Post conference workshops will be offered to conference delegates. See the website for additional details and fees. LUCENT * COMPAQ * DATABEAM's H.323 * INTERNET TELEPHONY GATEWAY WORKSHOP * HOW TO REGISTER (and for more information): Online - http://www.pulver.com/von97/ Phone - 800.798.2928 408.354.3569 (Outside the US) Fax - 408.354.2571 Mail - pulver.com 20 N. Santa Cruz Los Gatos, CA 95030 Email - von97@pulver.com ------------------------------ From: telone@shout.net (Tel-One Network Services) Subject: Re: URL Correction For Article "SMS Database Searchable?" Date: 26 Feb 1997 00:09:36 GMT Organization: Tel-One To Judith Oppenheimer: I resent the fact that you are using this newsgroup as a method of promoting your own professional services. Most of us have affiliations with one telephone carrier or another - but most of us respect that this newsgroup is of a professional nature, catering to those professionsals who wish to discuss REAL issues, not trying to "sell" something. > USA Global Link's Global 800 search engine can be found at > http://www.thedigest.com/icb/, scroll down to > "SEARCH FOR YOUR GLOBAL 800 NUMBER." > Judith Oppenheimer > ICB Toll Free News > j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Judith has no connection with them, and she responds in the next message. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 19:34:08 -0500 From: "J. Oppenheimer" Reply-To: j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net Organization: ICB Toll Free News Subject: Re: SMS Database: Thanks, But No Thanks ICB Toll Free News has no professional affiliation with USA Global Link; this was written in the context of reporting about a free Global 800 search engine that USA Global Link is offering. In the original article the URL was misquoted -- I believe you are referring to the correction I asked Pat to print. The URL leads to my site -- ICB Toll Free News (a free web zine), where I have a brief article about the search engine that links to the search engine itself. Judith Oppenheimer ICB Toll Free News http://www.thedigest.com/icb/ ------------------------------ From: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: ISP Common Carrier Status (was Re: Cyber Promotions) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 00:40:56 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services Reply-To: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com On Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:32:57 EST, Danny Burstein quoted: > Cyber Promotions Inc. will launch the first bulk e-mail friendly > Internet provider in the nation on March 17. It will allow computer=20 > users to send millions of commercial ads -- also known as spam -- for > a single monthly fee. Spamford has been bounced from one backbone ISP to another, finally to land upon AGIS's network. Unlike other ISPs (including MCI, Sprint, and Digex) that deal with spam however slowly, AGIS *refuses* to respond to complaints about spam ISPs, claiming a "common carrier" status. Personally, I think the "common carrier" excuse is simply BS to allow spam to proliferate on its network. As of now, most of the major spammers have moved to AGIS to shield themselves from complaints or disconnection ... and in response, net-admins and users are starting to block IP packets and email originating from AGIS customers! Many in the net-abuse groups (including myself) have branded AGIS itself a "rogue ISP" -- putting them in the same group as Spamford, Lyle Larson [Micrologic/Earthstar], Jeff Slaton, etc. My question is: What exactly *is* ISPs' status as "common carriers" -- and why does AGIS claim it's legally incapable of controlling spammers, when *telco-owned* ISPs can and do cut off spammers? Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! dba Catoosa Computing Services, 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: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Utah Selects 435 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 03:09:08 -0800 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! In article , jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs. net wrote: > ...from the Salt Lake Tribune > AREA CODE 435: > Rural Utah Callers To Ring In Summer With a New Number > Push-Button Pioneers? There was some > preliminary talk of making Utah's new code 724, to commemorate July > 24, the date that the first Mormon pioneers entered the Great Salt > Lake Valley. But 724 already is a working exchange in Orem. So, by a > mathematical process of elimination, planners settled on 435. The fact that area code 724 was already assigned may have played a small role in this decision as well. (724 will overlay 412 in western Pennsylvania later this year.) > Chicago kept its cherished 312 area code, > and the crescent of suburbs got stuck with 708. Boston retained its > trademark 617, while the nether regions beyond the outer belt were > consigned to the new 508. And downtown San Francisco, home of the > legendary 415, will slough off the South Bay to the dreaded stigma of > 650 this August. A little behind the times there. The 312/708 split is hardly news, and most of Chicago is no longer 312. As for San Francisco, the 415 area code "sloughed off" the South Bay back in 1959, to the "dreaded stigma" of area code 408. It is the Peninsula that will get 650 later this year. ** 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" << ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #52 *****************************