Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id CAA12517; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 02:26:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 02:26:03 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199704080626.CAA12517@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #87 Status: R TELECOM Digest Tue, 8 Apr 97 02:26:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 87 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson CIR Editorial on Broadband Access (Monty Solomon) Re: Anti-Trust and the Advanced Intelligent Network (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: Latest AT&T Residential "Promotional" Deal (Goobah Goobah) Re: Alltel Blocks 1+10D Dialing (Steven Lichter) Fort Mill, SC Telephone Anomalies (was: Alltel Blocks 1+10D) (S. Schwartz) Re: Florida PSC to Revisit 904 Split (Richard D.G. Cox) Re: Florida PSC to Revisit 904 Split (John Cropper) Re: The Next Toll Free Code: 877 (John Cropper) Re: The Next Toll Free Code: 877 (Judith Oppenheimer) Silly Me! Forgot to Give the Number ... (TELECOM Digest Editor) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@massis.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 01:04:36 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: CIR Editorial on Broadband Access Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM FYI Begin forwarded message: Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 14:52:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Nolan Subject: CIR Editorial on Broadband Access "Why I Like Hybrid Fiber Coax Networks" by Lawrence Gasman President Communications Industry Researchers, Inc., Charlottesville, Va. A few months back my company put out a press release saying that we thought that in the long run broadband access technology would look a lot more like the cable modem/hybrid fiber coax architecture than the Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) architecture. The press release was issued to promote a new report we had produced on business opportunities in the Internet infrastructure and produced something of a furor. Several clients called to say that we were severely underestimating the capabilities of DSL technology and we even received some hate mail from someone who thought we were making propaganda for the cable companies and who wrote to tell us how evil they were. The current fascination with DSL technology, which supports data rates of a few Mbps for delivery to homes or businesses over existing copper is quite understandable. Such speeds are an order of magnitude greater than ISDN promises and because the infrastructure is there already, xDSL appears to have more short term potential than highly fiberized architectures. What is more some vendors are claiming that the current generation of DSL in the form of Asymmetric DSL (ADSL) will eventually give way to a higher speed version, Very high-speed DSL (VDSL). Finally, and perhaps this is most important factor, there is a considerable commitment by both the vendor and the service provider community to DSL. In particular, some of the major telephone companies have formed a consortium to define a common approach to DSL and this consortium has awarded its first contract. All of this is very important and suggests that DSL will play an major role in pushing up the average rate at which users access the Internet and intranets; something incidentally we never denied in our press release. But DSL has important limitations; the most important of which is cost. The current figures usually cited are around $1,000 per termination for ADSL, although everyone expects the price to come down within a few years as the result of both mass production and experience curve effects. It is the hope of the telephone company consortium that their banding together will help accelerate this cost decline. But it is unclear just how far DSL can fall in price. Many experts believe that DSL can be brought down to one fourth of its current cost within a few years. This is possible =97 Ethernet interfaces are about one tenth of what they cost originally. But DSL also has to contend with other limitations. It operates only over relatively short distances -- remember this is copper we are talking about here. And it does not work at all when there are loading coils in the loop, so these must be defused. But ultimately there may be another limitation to DSL, in the form of data rates. This certainly is not an issue now -- I would be personally willing to sell my soul to get Internet access to my PC at 3 Mbps -- but it could become one sooner than we think. It is true that VDSL promises data rates up to 50 Mbps, but it remains an open question as to whether such a technology could be commercialized successfully over the existing physical infrastructure. It is also true that some experts regard the data bottleneck as occurring not in the access infrastructure itself, but at the desktop, where PCS as currently not really built to talk to networks at very high speeds. However, this will change as the client server model becomes ubiquitous and it is assumed from the get go that PCs will spend much of their time running applications that are stored somewhere other than their now hard drives. As the network becomes the computer, access to WANs will have to begin to approximate to the speeds at which information is transferred into and out of CPUs. For high MIPS machines, such speeds are potentially in the Gbps range. Something that DSL in any of its many avatars cannot promise. This transformation could occur faster than many people expect. I remember buying my first 386 machine and thinking I would never need anything more powerful to do my work. But software developers pushed 386s to the limit, and then 486s, and then . . . Well you get the picture. Something similar could happen to broadband access technology as new "broadband" content emerges on the Internet. If this analysis is correct then only a fiber, or semifiber solution will suffice. In many cases this solution could be fiber-to-the-curb or even the long promised fiber-to-the-home. Indeed one large Bell company says that it will use these approaches for new builds, although it will use DSL and hybrid fiber-coax (HFC) solutions in other areas. Although the future of HFC is by no means certain, it does seem to offer an attractive path forward. Although the available bandwidth on HFC is shared, HFC is highly scaleable. The network can be redesigned so that fewer people share the pipe. Or more channels can be devoted to data services. Or wave division multiplexing can be employed to bring more data in over the same channel. Like DSL, HFC is probably just an interim technology. But because of its scalability, it may be a little less interim than DSL. And that is why I like HFC. Robert Nolan Marketing Director Communications Industry Researchers (617) 484-2077 WWW: "www.cir-inc.com" Mail: 4 Francis St. =09 2nd Floor Belmont, MA 02178 ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Anti-Trust and the Advanced Intelligent Network Date: 7 Apr 1997 04:57:04 -0400 Organization: Panix Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , Marty Tennant wrote: > The Advanced Intelligent Network advances the concept of the public > switched network as a computer, raising anti-trust issues, as you will > see below. > I am attaching a copy of my objections to the BellSouth MCI > interconnection agreement. Since the items in question were part of > their negotiated agreement, and not an arbitrated item, my objections > are valid. [big snip] As someone else actively developing third-party AIN applications, I can't for the life of me understand what you find objectionable about the BellSouth-MCI agreement. BellSouth, as far as I can tell, has agreed to sell MCI AIN trigger provisioning. Why could you possibly object to that? It's damned near impossible to get a LEC to sell unbundled AIN service of any type, even though the interconnection rules would appear to require that they do so. This is a welcome first step -- among other things, this means that BellSouth will have to work through the issues of service translation at their IXC gateway STPs, global title translation for "foreign" AIN services -- that is, running in someone else's SCP -- access to SSP trigger state from gatewayed SS7 networks, etc. Almost nobody has experience with this in the field today, despite a lot of pious talk from the standards bodies and the Bellcore instructors about how it "ought" to work, and this seems like a definite step in the right direction. If I've misunderstood some aspect of the agreement or your objection to it, I'd like to know. However, it sounds to me more like you're irritated that MCI managed to close a deal with BellSouth before you did. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com ------------------------------ From: Goobah Goobah Subject: Re: Latest AT&T Residential "Promotional" Deal Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 05:12:41 -0500 Organization: Netcom Reply-To: goobah@innocent.com Al Hays wrote: >> Some weeks ago there was a discussion in the Digest regarding the >> "hidden" promotional deals that you would necessarily have to know >> about in advance in order to receive them. This weekend I experienced >> this very phenomenon and did switch from Sprint to AT&T. AT&T's >> latest 6 month "One Rate Promo" promotional deal is: 10 cents per >> minute, 24 hours daily with no monthly minimum, no monthly fees, no >> circles, lists, etc. Additionally, the promo gives 250 minutes free >> each month for 6 months and AT&T will send a certificate equal to the >> amount of the LEC's fee for switching LD carriers (typically $5). >> Re your heads up on that new AT&T promotion: >> I called the usual AT&T customer service number on my bill & they >> couldn't give me the 250 min free on their system. Do you still have the >> callback number for the AT&T telemarketing department? Their system >> should allow the 250 min/mo. > The number given to me was 800-225-7466. The strange thing was that > the operator who answered asked me "what extension?" Ofcourse I > didn't have an extension number and I simply explained that this was > the number that the telemarketer gave me to call back to change my LD > carrier to AT&T. Subsequently, I've had two close friends who have > called this number and switched to the same plan. Hope this helps. Incidently, my job is to handle many of your calls TO the "telemarketing department" ... What you need to know is that when you're calling back the number outbound telemarketers give you, you are calling a TOTALLY different department. There's no way to reach those people that call you, unless you request the specific name and phone number of the vendor who represents AT&T. Anyway, the people you DO end up calling may be restricted as to what they can give you, so sometimes the offers they can give you differ from the outbound telemarketers. Also, the six month promotion for ten cents per minute does not always include an extra 250 minutes per month for six months. Not everyone gets the same deal. It's not logical to give something like that away to someone who doesn't make much long distance in the first place ... or someone who just wants to abuse the system. Furthermore, AT&T will not always cover the switching fee in every offer. Besides, it's not AT&T that issues the FEE ... it's your local telephone company! Anyone who has worked in outbound telemarketing, especially for AT&T, understands how the system is set up. If your job is to call people ... that's what you'll do all day ... no calls come into your phone. So, realize this: When a telemarketer calls you, and gives you a number to call if you change your mind, it probably isn't the same place that called YOU. The world isn't that small ... Oh...and about AT&T One Rate Plus -- ten cents per minute 24/7 w/$4.95 monthly fee. The waiver of that fee is nothing customers nor AT&T representatives have control over. If we can't waive our own monthly fees as AT&T employees ... we can't waive anyone elses. Enrollment into that plan with a six or two month waiver has been discontinued in most call centers. Remember, promos don't last forever ... they have certain enrollment dates and whatnot ... and that is all proprietary information. And if there's no way for AT&T to bring back promos if they're already expired ... we're regulated by the FCC, remember? It's just like coming up to Foley's after missing a Red Apple Sale and trying to persuade them to bring it back JUST for today ... just for you. But for any of you who like the idea of ten cents per minute for the first six months, and then going to another plan automatically in month seven, (you're not obligated to stay on the plan in month seven so if you're NOT lazy call us up and see what other plans might benefit you) that promotion is still there. You can either choose automatic enrollment in AT&T One Rate or AT&T Simple Rate after the six months; there is no automatic enrollment into the AT&T One Rate Plus Plan. But I must remind you, for the millionth time that promotional deals aren't open for enrollment whenever you'd like them to be, so I'm not sure how long this deal will last. Thank You. Goobah P.S. Don't forget that inbound and outbound offers do not always match. So ... don't blame us if the offer given to you by someone who called you was better than what you could get when you called the inbound centers. Eat it while it's hot! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 15:33:28 PDT From: Steven Lichter Subject: Re: Alltel Blocks 1+10D Dialing > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When the Bakker's and Heritage USA were > in business, the complex was sufficiently large enough that it was > mostly in BellSouth territory but extended partly over into Fort Mill > Telephone Company territory. Bakker wanted service entirely from Bell > South on a centrex, however the Fort Mill Telephone Company sued to > force that portion of Heritage USA which was in their territory to be Some years ago, about 30 years, RCA Defense Systems located in Van Nuys, Calif. and wanted a specific type of service installed. They contacted Pacific Telephone who said sorry about that. They were on the border between Pacific Telephone and California Water & Telephone; you know Drip & Tinkle (Now GTE). Well they sure wanted the business and did all they could to get it. That included moving the Centrex into CWT service territory which still was part of the RCA plant. To Say the least Pacific Telephone was not very happy about losing a large customer, but there was nothing that could be done since it was on their plant and their wire. I can't see how Southern Bell could have said anything or even won the case, but then who know about the courts. *****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. ------------------------------ From: Stan Schwartz Subject: Fort Mill, SC Telephone Anomalies (was: Alltel Blocks 1+10D) Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 19:35:54 -0400 In TD v17 #85, Pat wrote: > Bakker wanted service entirely from Bell South on a centrex, however > the Fort Mill Telephone Company sued to force that portion of Heritage > USA which was in their territory to be serviced by Fort Mill. I think > the one large hotel was involved." The one large hotel is now known as the Raddisson Grand Resort, and it just started serving alcohol a few months ago (to the dismay of some former Heritage USA members.) Very close to this area is the Paramount Carowinds theme park. It straddles the NC/SC border and during the course of a visit to the park, one crosses the border quite a few times. On the North Carolina side of the park, the pay phones are BellSouth owned, and are in the 704 NPA. On the South Carolina side, the pay phones are owned by FMTC, and are in NPA 803. In some cases, the different phones are as close as 50 feet from one another. The last time I tried it (last summer), I believe it was a local call from the NC side to a Fort Mill number, but long distance from the SC side to Charlotte. Does anyone know if this park is actually served by two physically separate central offices? Another wrinkle was thrown in today. What do I do if I need Fort Mill directory assistance? Well, that depends on the BellSouth DA operator (Alltel also leases this service from BellSouth). If I dial '411' from home, I get the BellSouth automated attendant, which I have to get through to ask a live operator for Fort Mill. Most of the time, the operator will cooperate and say "Hold for that directory" and transfer me to (I assume) to a FMTC DA operator. Today, however, I got an operator who told me "Hold for that number" and transferred me to a recording of "803-555-1212". Calling that number, I get the "AT&T Directory Link" prompt and then get to speak with someone who has no clue as to where Fort Mill is, but is willing to give me outdated directory information (unintentionally, I'm sure). I hoped that this was an isolated incident and I called 411 again. The operator dutifully transferred me to FMTC's directory assistance. Sighs of relief all around ;-) Stan (all spam will be returned in kind) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Didn't Paramount Carowinds take over some of the properly formerly beloning to Bakker's organization? I thought I read somewhere that Paramount was on land that formerly was part of Heritage. At the time Heritage was operating, one of the telephony trade publications -- it might have been {Telephony Magazine} or it might have been Harry Newton -- published a very detailed and interesting article on the phone network at Heritage and discussed in detail the squabble between Fort Mill Tel and Southern Bell over who would provide what service, and where. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 18:20:03 EDT From: richard@mandarin.com (Richard D.G. Cox) Subject: Re: Florida PSC to Revisit 904 Split In-Reply-To: <199704061313.JAA20696@massis.lcs.mit.edu> Joseph Singer said: > This begs the question why so many places are absolutely opposed to > putting an overlay into an area rather than continuing to do a > geographical split to give numbering relief. Using an overlay there > is no expense (that I can see) to the people involved i.e. businesses, > cell phone customers, re-programming, stationery, etc. It is not their choice -- overlays have been prohibited by (I believe) the FCC, until the year 2000, ro ensure fair local-loop competition. The same has happened in the UK -- overlays were initially proposed, but firmly rejected by users. We are now doing what the US should be doing, namely allocating 8-digit local number schemes (with shorter area codes) to our larger metropolitan areas such as London, Cardiff, Belfast etc. Overlays mean that the customers of the incumbent telco will dial each other with seven digits, but have to dial a full national number for calls to customers served by new operators -- thus giving the invalid impression that such calls are non-local. It is time that the US decided to bite the bullet and accept that the present number format, which has served them well for many years, has now passed its sell-by date. The format demanded by today's network is 1-XY ZNNN xxxx (where Y#0/1). This can be handled by all switches out of area without structural changes (only the routes need to be set up as 1-XYZ, separately for all valid values of Z). Local switches would of course need to be programmed for the eight digit schemes. The same approach taken to 800 numbers -- put them all on 88 ZNNN xxxx -- would obviate all the problems you are having with replicating the 800 vanity numbers on 888 and 877, and so extinguishing the supply too soon. Richard D G Cox Mandarin Technology, P.O. Box 111, PENARTH, South Glamorgan CF64 3YG, UK Telephone: +44 97 3311 1111; Fax: +44 97 3311 1100 ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Re: Florida PSC to Revisit 904 Split Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 10:24:02 -0400 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net Joseph Singer wrote: > John Cropper quoted an article: >> BellSouth Telecommunications wanted a new area code selected for North >> Florida last year. But disputes over which region would receive the >> new code forced the issue before commissioners. While most phone >> companies favored keeping 904 for Jacksonville and switching the >> Panhandle, state officials predicted changing Tallahassee's area code >> would cost taxpayers $2.48 million. > This begs the question why so many places are absolutely opposed to > putting an overlay into an area rather than continuing to do a > geographical split to give numbering relief. Using an overlay there > is no expense (that I can see) to the people involved i.e. businesses, > cell phone customers, re-programming, stationery, etc. You have to of > course modify how you refer to your phone number rather than just > saying the phone number is XXX-XXXX you have to say the phone number > is XXX-XXX-XXXX. Eventually we're all going to have to have even more > numbers than we do even with the "relief" that we're getting and > eventually you're not going to be able to make any kind of rational > split of an area so why not just accept the inevitable and use > overlays? The really humorous part is that Miami (305) and Ft. Lauderdale (954) will BOTH need overlays within the next 18 months, and 813 will need some form of relief within 24 months. Overlaying 904 NOW would be a step in the right direction, despite the fact that elderly residents would be forced to dial ten digits (a point mentioned by AT&T in opposing an overlay). 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 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When AT&T complains that 'elderly residents would be forced to dial ten digits' what they really mean is new customers of AT&T (local service) would be forced to dial ten digits and they are going to have a hard enough time getting people to switch local telcos without requiring new dialing proced- ures in the process. The old people can be damned! That is not AT&T's concern at all. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Re: The Next Toll Free Code: 877 Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 10:28:53 -0400 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net Greg Monti wrote: > A brief piece on page A1 of the {Wall Street Journal} on April 3, > 1997, notes that North America's third toll-free code will go into > effect in Spring 1998. It will be 877. Ironically, this code will only last about two or three years as well if the foolish companies scrambling to get their 800 numbers duplicated in 888 do the same in 877 ... Ask Judith Oppenheimer what a mess the 888 duplication has been to date ... 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 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: True, but scramble they will. They'll keep on worrying and fretting about the people (admittedly a large number) who do not know how to dial numbers correctly and who are possibly going to wind up with some competitor. My 800 number has lately been getting a bunch of calls from some foreign speaking person looking for an insurance company he saw advertised on television with the 888 'edition' of my number. No matter what I say he won't listen to me. I certainly would not wish him off on the insurance company either if he is as argumentative and ignorant with them as he is with me. I dunno, maybe 800-FLOWERS would like to talk to him for awhile. ... Judith Oppenheimer will now respond. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: Re: The Next Toll Free Code: 877 Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 12:11:20 -0400 Organization: ICB Toll Free News Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com See article, 04/04/97 - "REPLICATION: TO BE OR NOT TO BE is not the question.", at ICB Toll Free News, http://www.icbtollfree.com, for our thoughts and advice on 877. Also, look for updates on the 800 flat-rate dial-up problems -- both those that don't exist (scam), and those that do (AOL). Judith Oppenheimer ICB TOLL FREE NEWS - 800/888/global800 news, analysis, advice. http://www.icbtollfree.com, mailto:news-editor@icbtollfree.com Judith Oppenheimer - 800 The Expert, ph 212 684-7210, fx 212 684-2714 mailto:j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net, mailto:icb@juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 00:57:15 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Silly Me! Forgot to Give the Number ... In the message in the last issue about Frontier and their cellular service, I forgot to mention the number to call to reach them. About two minutes after the message appeared on Usenet I got email asking for it. 800-594-5900 gets you Frontier customer service. Remember, I get $25 for referrals, and you can give them my number 847-329-0571 to review for that purpose. And remember, I hope sometime Tuesday to have the problem at massis cleared up so the web pages go back in service. Until then read stuff on Usenet I guess. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #87 *****************************