Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA19889; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 09:21:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 09:21:08 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703181421.JAA19889@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #70 TELECOM Digest Tue, 18 Mar 97 09:21:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 70 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson MCI Ups the Cost of a Call (Dave Stott) Re: NYNEX's *Latest* Blunder (Lee Winson) Re: NYNEX's *Latest* Blunder (Jim Willis) Re: NYNEX's *Latest* Blunder (Kevin C. Almeroth) Re: NYNEX's *Latest* Blunder (David Lesher) Re: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion (Bob Goudreau) Re: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion (Nils Andersson) US West Looks to Lawmakers for Rate Boost (Tad Cook) Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving (Hillary Gorman) Re: Dialing *70 on Non-Call-Waiting Equipped Line (Hillary Gorman) I Got Slammed Also (Steven H. Lichter) Re: Slammed Again: NYNEX's Response (John Cropper) Re: Nostalgia For "Beep" Line (Martin McCormick) 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, 18 Mar 1997 06:17:37 -0500 From: Dave Stott Subject: MCI Ups the Cost of a Call In the March 14th edition of the {Wall Street Journal}, there is a "Notice to MCI Customers" (pg C14), stating that MCI Preferred(r) and Preferred Maximizer Business Interstate Inbound Services will increase by 3.3%, that non-operator assisted Business Calling Card Surcharges will increase by $0.05, and that MCI Prism Plus(r) domestic, non-operator assisted Business Calling Card Surcharges will increase by $0.15. Not really noteworthy *except* that the ad goes on to say: "These increases result from the FCC's implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which required the FCC to ensure fair compensation for all calls made from pay phones. As a result of the _FCC action_ (sic), carriers are required to pay pay-phone providers for calls completed on their pay phones." I suppose if the fees for all calling card calls are spread across those originating at pay phones, this covers the $0.35 per call to MCI 800 numbers. What I find especially interesting is that the ad makes it appear that the FCC is responsible for the rate increase, when in fact, MCI has chosen this particular route for offsetting those additional expenses, instead of other, more direct fee schedules (such as only surcharging from pay phones). Dave Stott McKenzie Telecommunications Group ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: NYNEX's *Latest* Blunder Date: 17 Mar 1997 23:16:13 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS Per N. Marino's complaint of premium service offering from directory assistance ... > These services are BIG MONEY to the local phone companies. Hey -- > aren't they restricted from being in the information business? My answer: Welcome to the wonderful world of competition. The old staid telephone company is becoming unregulated, which means it can seek out to make money any way it can. If that means inconvenience to you, the customer, too bad. It's no different when I call my bank with a simple question and have to listen to their pitch for a zillion different services before they ansewr my question. Generally, I like and support the concept of competition. But it must be remembered (and most people don't!) that competition has some serious disadvantages, too, and a regulated monopoly had some good points. What is best for the customer in a utility service like telephones remains to be seen. ------------------------------ From: Jim Willis Subject: Re: NYNEX's *Latest* Blunder Date: 18 Mar 1997 02:51:00 GMT Organization: Cyberion Networking Corp. This must have been dreamed up by the telcos together as Bell Canada has this, though when my Dad called the customer service they turned it off. The *02 will turn it off and on. There is a code in the switch ... NYNEX just is not listening! Jim Willis > They're obviously doing it to pitch the new service, so people will > spend 50c. Somebody in the Marketing/Advertising Department dreamed > this up to sell. > I suspect the approval of the marketing people will be necessary before > the audio recording is pulled. > Chalk up another to competition and money making. ------------------------------ From: kevin@cc.gatech.edu (Kevin C. Almeroth) Subject: Re: NYNEX's *Latest* Blunder Date: 17 Mar 1997 15:28:43 -0500 Organization: College of Computing, Georgia Tech Michael J. Kuras wrote: > Furthermore, she swears that it is *impossible* to block this feature > from my line. Every NYNEX user will get this feature and there's > nothing that can be done to stop it. No *xx code, no CO blocking, > nothing. My modem's redial feature is useless. I now have to sit > there and manually redial until I connect. Sounds like a good plan by Nynex to me. Let's see, could it be that their purpose is to make modem use less convenient. Wait, now does that make their network behave more like a voice-only network. Maybe the old customer use models aren't worthless after all! Kevin Almeroth ------------------------------ From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: NYNEX's *Latest* Blunder Reply-To: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 16:09:16 GMT Nicholas Marino writes: > My pet peeve with my local phone co., Bell Atlantic, and probably a > lot of others, is the hard sell you get when you dial information and > are asked if you would like them to connect you for 65 cents. Unless > you agree to spend an additional 65 cents for the call, you have to > keep the phone on-hook for at least 5 seconds before you can make > another call. I believe you can require that be blocked on your line. A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 04:38:46 -0500 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion J. Oppenheimer wrote: > 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.) But this argument (not a very good one anyway, IMHO) has already been lost: there are now many "commercial" toll free numbers in NPA 888, and there are still lots of personal toll-free numbers in NPA 800. Separating the two domains into distinct NPAs at this point would be infeasible. > 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. So why the apparent objection to repeating this successful achievement for new toll-free NPAs such as 888, 877, etc? > 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, I don't think that the rest of us mind establishing a given 800 number's owner's "property" rights to that number (call it 800-abc-defg). But you go far beyond that, by asserting that said owner should also be awarded (for free!) new rights, namely to the numbers 888-abc-defg, 877-abd-defg, etc. I have no problem with letting an 800 number owner keep his actual property. Indeed, your claims of concern for property rights protection ring quite hollow in the case of what you call "non-commercial" 800 numbers: you proposed confiscating such "property" from their owners and forcing a switch to an 888 number. But those who wish to have their property rights respected must also respect the fact that they have *no* such rights over *other* phone numbers. Additionally, I have yet to hear a convincing explanation of how a company is going to lose business from its 800-abc-defg number just because another company starts using 888-abc-defg. If anything, it's the new kid on the block (the 888 number holder) who runs the risk, when simpletons who believe that "toll-free implies 800" mistakenly dial 800-abc-defg instead of the 888 number. But how likely is a mistake in the *other* direction (e.g., somebody dials 1-888-FLOWERS instead of 1-800-FLOWERS)? As Pat has already pointed out, the presence of a few "dumbos" is not a good reason to piss away an otherwise-useful portion of our numbering space. People are now quite familiar with the concept of new area codes; now they're getting used to the concept of new toll-free area codes as well. I don't think that 877, 866, etc. are going to be nearly has hard to deal with as 888 was at first. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Subject: Re: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion Date: 18 Mar 1997 09:42:05 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In article , J. Oppenheimer writes: > 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.) I agree that segregating the toll-free prefixes depending on use MIGHT be a good idea, but there are several problems. Firstly, it is a little too late. Secondly, the logic is fuzzy, no fault of the poster as the underlying distinctions are fuzzy. A small business could conceivably have a "commercial" number that in fact went to a pager when no other live option was available. There is a continuum of uses from an airline with a 24 hour reservations number to a single person with a pager, and they overlap in mysterious ways. Coming up with useful distinctions that will stick seems tough. 800 is NOT a "brand" in the legal sense. It may have SOME of the same properties, such as being identified as "toll-free" by most people in North America (also used in the UK, Singapore, HongKong and some other countries, including the Universal International Freephone country code 800). However, teaching the public that 88x is also toll free (or 88x where x=some subset) does not seem overly onerous, it will come almost automatically as more people advertise "call toll-free 888-FORTUNE etc ). Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ Subject: US West Looks to Lawmakers for Rate Boost Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 03:38:18 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) U S West looks to lawmakers for rate boost By CHARLES E. BEGGS Associated Press Writer SALEM, Ore. (AP) -- A bill that could boost U S West telephone bills by as much as 55 percent amounts to an end run around state regulators who are likely to reject the proposal, legislators were told Tuesday. "This is the most anti-consumer legislation I have ever seen," said Bob Jenks, executive director of the Citizens' Utility Board, a utility watchdog group. The rate increase still is pending before the Oregon Public Utility Commission. But commission member Roger Hamilton testified Tuesday that the measure "has potential to cause consumers great harm" and ought to be shelved. The commission has concluded the company's proposal would raise the cost of basic residential service to about $20 a month. The House telecommunications subcommittee is considering HB3021, which U S West describes as an effort to update Oregon laws to bring them into line with changes in federal law. Chuck Lenard, U S West vice president for Oregon, said the intent of the bill is to allow basic service rates to increase to about $16 a month, over three to four years. "There are misunderstandings about the bill," Leonard said. U S West serves 90 percent of Oregon's telephone customers, and serves 25 million customers in 14 western states. The company is pushing similar legislation in Washington state, against tough odds. Utility commissioners there turned down a U S West proposal last year that could have raised monthly basic rates to as much as $26. A related measure pending in the North Dakota Legislature would do away with price restrictions on local phone service. Long-distance telephone companies and other competitors are looking to make inroads in local telephone service markets as the result of a 1996 federal law forcing local monopoly telephone carriers to open their lines to competitors. Lenard said the laws must allow for the changing competitive climate in the industry. Ten companies are competing so far for local service in Oregon, he said, and 38 others have applied for approval to compete. But critics of the bill said it would give phone companies too much latitude and the state too little power to curb rate increases. U S West contends rates for basic service are priced below cost, forcing the company to charge more for such services as long distance and Internet connections. The bill would give the PUC little power to challenge the company's accounting of costs, opponents contend. Jenks, the Citizens Utility Board director, said that having failed to convince state regulators that increases are justified, U S West is asking legislatures to become rate-making bodies. The proposed legislation "should be named the incumbent monopoly protection act of 1997," said John Glassock, a spokesman for the American Association of Retired Persons. "Its provisions protect the incumbent monopoly while opening the door to higher prices and poorer service quality" for residential customers, Glasscock said. ------------------------------ From: hillary@hillary.net (Hillary Gorman) Subject: Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving Date: 17 Mar 1997 16:17:20 GMT Organization: Packet Shredders Anonymous In , Michael P. Deignan wrote: > Better yet ... How about we ban >women drivers Ever been behind a woman running late for work? The vanity mirror is > down, the lipstick and blush is going on ... Her eyes are everywhere > except ON THE ROAD! > Ban women drivers! Keep them in the passenger seat, where they belong! Hmm. I don't know where you're from (the NIC says "No match for "IDEAMATION.COM".) but I've lived/commuted in Philadelphia, San Francisco, and DC areas, and I've seen PLENTY of men using lip balm, hair mousse, and even eyeliner, not to mention shaving in the mirror while driving. How about we just ban >sexists< and off-topic posts? hillary "banning myself, now..." gorman hillary gorman......................................hillary@netaxs.com If you need help, contact "So that's 2 T-1s and a newsfeed....would you like clues with that?" Net Access...we got the clues, we got the funk, we got the bandwidth! ------------------------------ From: hillary@hillary.net (Hillary Gorman) Subject: Re: Dialing *70 on Non-Call-Waiting Equipped Line Date: 17 Mar 1997 16:22:22 GMT Organization: Packet Shredders Anonymous In , Steven K. Smith wrote: > fax/modem. The fact is that there's really no need to suppress CW for > modem use (and I couldn't for faxing) -- the latest protocols (V.34, > etc.) can live with the interruptions caused by CW signalling. They > just treat it as a(nother) hiccup on the line, and go right on. So, > don't worry about it. If it works for you, cool. A lot of modems won't handle it at all, though, so I really wouldn't recommend people with call waiting dial into their ISP w/o *70 unless they've done a bunch of tests first ... hillary gorman......................................hillary@netaxs.com If you need help, contact "So that's 2 T-1s and a newsfeed....would you like clues with that?" Net Access...we got the clues, we got the funk, we got the bandwidth! ------------------------------ From: co057@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven H. Lichter) Subject: I Got Slammed Also Date: 17 Mar 1997 20:01:17 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Reply-To: co057@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven H. Lichter) Here is a good one. It appears I got slammed by Wiltel and was billed by U.S. Billing, Inc. I have a PIC block with my local carrier PacBell and in January switched to GTE Long Distance for out of Franchise, being a retired GTE Employee and the rates being very good, even better then others I had looked at. All went well, PacBell changed the PIC for me to GTE, that is a fact, and still is. It appears that in the Long Distance system is where the trouble started. LDDS/WorldCom's network is one that GTE is using and GTE send the data to them, but for some reason WorldCom left my numbers as an Open PIC, and Wiltel which also appears to use the network picked me up and started billing me a 3 1/2 times my rate and no discount at all. When I tried to reach them over the weekend it appears they are not open then, and the hours are Central time. When I did reach USBI I reached someone that told me I must have used an access code to make these calls if I was not on the network. I wanted to talk to a supervisor and was told that is what they would tell me also, they finally transfered me, and the phone rang for 25 minutes and no one ever did pick it up; some customer relations. I again called back, and this time I must have got someone at USBI that either know what was going on and know what to do and even seemed to care, they called Wiltel for me and got things going to try and fix the problem, they also called GTE and PacBell. So it looks like you can check your LD carrier by the 700 number and think you have it when in fact may have been picked up on another system. PacBell's code for GTE was correct, but I still was switch. What is going to happen next. Just think what happens when local service go open, you could have you local carrier changed and you may not even know it. *****LEGAL NOTICE TO ALL BULK E-MAILERS***** NOTICE TO BULK EMAILERS: Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, 227, any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms. SysOp Apple Elite II and OggNet Hub (909)359-5338 2400/14.4 24 hours, Home of GBBS/LLUCE Support for the Apple II and Macintoch computers. **Permission is specifically WITHHELD for the collection of this address for any e-mail unrelated to the subject of this article.** ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Re: Slammed Again: NYNEX's Response Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 16:20:05 -0500 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net Robert Bononno wrote: > Someone asked me about NYNEX's response to being slammed by > AT&T. Basically NYNEX said, er, um, uh, that it couldn't have > happened. I have two phone numbers. I was slammed last year by > Heartline. At the time I specifically requested that NYNEX put a > freeze on *both* numbers. And they told me they had. When I called > right after the AT&T mishap, they told me there was a freeze only on > *one* number. They said they would correct the situation at once. When > I told them that both numbers had been switched to AT&T, the operator > said that couldn't have happened. Well, it did happen. Here's a thought: If your mail delivery is questionable (i.e. someone could be stealing your postal mail, which is known to happen), then it IS possible that the party in question could potentially intercept a check from an IXC, "sign" it over to themselves, and leave you holding the bag. No only do they get free cash that you wouldn't have known about, but they also change *YOUR* LD service. 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 ------------------------------ From: Martin McCormick Subject: Re: Nostalgia For "Beep" Line Date: 17 Mar 1997 22:04:37 GMT Organization: Oklahoma State University, Stillwater OK We had exactly the same thing at Oklahoma State University in 1970. I think it was an artifact of the #5 crossbar switch we had. I also remember an article in the "Daily Oklahoman" in the seventies about a "beep" line in Lawton, Oklahoma and how school kids used it in exactly the same way. There was a lot of flirting and craziness on our beep line. It was a sort of wired CB and was much like CB radio is today with many strange folks that seemed to come out of the woodwork at all hours of the day and night. A conversation might go like: (beeps every second), Are there any frats on the line? Yes. Want to fight? I want to beat the ---- out of some frat b------s! Female voice. Don't you guys have anything better to do? Ya' Who are you? And so it would go for hours. Sometimes, somebody would get mad or just want to harass everybody and play a loud radio in to the phone or would start playing music on their Touch Tone dials or making some other obnoxious noises. This was usually met with more noise or curses. I think Southwestern Bell did something to stop the beep line in the mid seventies. The busy signal changed slightly and after that, no more beep line. This was long before we got electronic switching, so whatever was done was some form of rewiring in the switch which prevented any crosstalk between channels connecting to the busy signal. There were at least three exchanges in use in the seventies, 372, 377, and 624, but they all terminated in the same switch so it didn't matter which exchange you were on. you could still get the beep line. Martin McCormick WB5AGZ Stillwater, OK 36.7N97.4W OSU Center for Computing and Information Services Data Communications Group ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #70 *****************************