Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id QAA23601; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 16:14:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 16:14:17 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801202114.QAA23601@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #15 TELECOM Digest Tue, 20 Jan 98 16:14:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 15 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Northeast Ice Storm: Free Emergency Phone Service (Danny Burstein) 100 Ameritech Calling Cards Deactivated in Software Upgrade (Tad Cook) Nice New Bell Book (Jim Haynes) ID This Bizarre Terminal! (Xmal Havoc) ISDN Standards in South Africa (W.K. Williams) Florida Overlay Hearing Coming Up (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: New MCI FCC Charge (D. Larry Martin) Re: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA (Craig Macbride) Re: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA (Nils Andersson) Re: Teleport ATT Merger (Darrell Hale) 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: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org 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 archives@telecom-digest.org 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. 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, 20 Jan 1998 07:54:22 EST From: danny burstein Subject: Northeast Ice Storm: Free Emergency Phone Service STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION At a session of the Public Service Commission held in the City of Albany on January 16, 1998 COMMISSIONER PRESENT: John F. O'Mara, Chairman CASE 98-C-0065 - Petition of New York Telephone Company for Immediate Approval of a Tariff Allowing the Provision of Emergency Telephone Facilities and Service Without Charge to Emergency Residential Shelters. ORDER APPROVING TEMPORARY TARIFF ALLOWING FREE EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SERVICE (Issued and Effective January 16, 1998) On January 15, 1998, New York Telephone Company requested our approval pursuant to Section 91 of the Public Service Law, of an emergency temporary tariff and waiver of the notice requirements of the State Administrative Procedures Act (SAPA) and the Commission's rules so that free emergency telephone service may commence as soon as possible. The purpose of this tariff is to permit the company to provide free telephone service to emergency shelters where customers have been displaced from their homes and telephone service has been interrupted by the recent severe ice storm. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Due to the recent ice storm, residents in many upstate counties are without telephone and electric service and have been forced from their homes into emergency shelters. New York Telephone has requested authorization to provide free telephone facilities and service to the emergency residential shelters so that the health and well-being of New Yorkers temporarily residing at these shelters can be maintained and monitored. Section 91 of the Public Service Law prohibits a telephone corporation from giving any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any person, corporation or locality. Therefore, under normal circumstances the proposed tariff providing free telephone service to a limited number of customers would be violative of the Public Service Law. In the instant situation, however, the Governor of the State of New York has declared a state of emergency in the affected upstate counties as a result of the damage to the electrical and telephone infrastructure from the recent ice storm. In addition, the state Emergency Management Office reports that over 17,000 people were in shelters. Accordingly, the Commission finds that it is reasonable to provide free telecommunications services to residential shelters providing emergency accommodations to New York State residents. The Commission also finds that the provision of free telephone service under these circumstances is in the public interest, and will approve the requested tariff for the duration of the emergency. The company also requests waiver of the notice provisions of the State Administrative Procedure Act and of applicable publication requirements. As compliance with the procedural requirements would preclude the timely effectiveness of the emergency tariff provisions, the Commission finds that immediate approval of this tariff request is necessary for the preservation of the public health and safety, and compliance with the advance notice and comment requirements of Section 202.1 of SAPA would be contrary to the public interest. It is ordered: 1. New York Telephone Company's request for approval of an emergency tariff establishing a service classification for the free provision of telephone facilities and service to emergency residential shelters is granted. Such emergency tariff shall become effective on filing with the Commission. The approval of this tariff shall continue for the duration of the state of emergency in the affected counties. 2. The approval described in Clause 1 is effective as an emergency measure pursuant to Section 202.6 of the State Administrative Procedures Act. 3. The requirement of Section 92(2) of the Public Service Law as to newspaper publication is waived. 4. This proceeding is continued. _________________________ JOHN F. O'MARA Chairman-Commissioner ------------------------------ Subject: 100 Ameritech Calling Cards Deactivated in Software Upgrade Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 21:54:20 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) 100 Wisconsin Ameritech Calling Cards Deactivated During Software Upgrade By Judy Newman , The Wisconsin State Journal Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News Jan. 20--While the UW hockey team spent a triumphant weekend in Omaha, Neb., Coach Jeff Sauer tried to telephone an injured player in Madison. But his Ameritech calling card didn't let the call go through. Administrative assistant Rob Malnory wanted to check on other teams' scores and assistant coach Pat Ford attempted to phone home. But none of the calls on their Ameritech cards cleared, either. "I've had this card almost since I've been here -- about 13 years," Sauer said. "It was unique; We all tried to make some calls and it just didn't work." They weren't alone. About 100 Ameritech calling card holders from the Madison area couldn't get their calls through, thanks to what Ameritech spokesman Bill Pendergast in Hoffman Estates, Ill. calls "one of the more unusual problems we've encountered." A switch that handles calling card calls into the 608 area code was programmed incorrectly last Thursday night, Pendergast said, deactivating the numbers. It resulted when the software was revised, possibly to change billing codes or to route calls more quickly. "It's one of those random things that happens," he said. The cards should be back in service some time today, Pendergast said. ------------------------------ From: Jim Haynes Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 22:28:04 -0800 Subject: Nice New Bell Book "Alexander Graham Bell - the Life and Times of the Man Who Invented the Telephone" by Edwin S. Grosvenor and Morgan Wesson, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., www.abramsbooks.com, ISBN 0-8109-4005-1. A biography of A. G. Bell with pictures on nearly every page: Bell and his family, early telephone equipment and offices, early telephone advertisements, other things Bell experimented with. Highly recommended. ------------------------------ From: xmalh@merv.martnet.com (Xmal Havoc) Subject: ID This Bizarre Terminal! Date: 19 Jan 1998 21:50:21 GMT Organization: MartNet Communications Hello All: I thought perhaps someone in this newsgroup could help me id a telephony-based terminal for me: I managed to get me hands on something which I would very much like some information on, if anyone is familiar with it (particularly pinouts for the ports). What it is, is this: It appears to be some sort of Telephone Operator's terminal, circa 1984. I'm not sure if the unit was used strictly by the telephone companies, or by any company which needed such a thing for their mailorder department or something like that. Anyway, the terminal is beige and dark brown, with AT&T's insignia on the upper left corner of the unit. It's approx. 17" deep x 7" tall x 11" wide. The keyboard is reminiscent of and old 286 laptop keyboard (which is self contained, BTW). Above the main keyboard is a rubber membrane keypad with digits, explicitly for dialing telephone numbers. To the right of the numbers are more rubber keys such as Redial, Recall, CMD, Mail, Redraw, and Lcl Dir. The screen on this self-contained unit is an 8"x3.5" monochrome (amber) display, around which are more (unlabeled) rubber membrane keys. These keys obviously correspond to whatever data is on the screen (i.e. Next to each button there is probably a menu option on the screen). On the left-hand side of the unit is a telephony handset which rests on its plastic arm. Ports: Next to the handset is a jack *similar* to an RJ45, but it's *not*. It's an 8-connector jack, too small for an RJ45 connector, too big for an RJ11. I've never seen these before. On the bottom of the terminal, there's an AC jack, a port that appears to be Centronics, and a 15-pin port (female), which I'm thinking might be an AUI (network) port. The sticker on the bottom gives the following info: Teletype Corporation Model: 5430 Code: 5430 CAA Serial: Now, the PROMware: When you turn the terminal on it says: Copyright AT&T Teletype Corporation 1984 Software Version 1.4 ... And on the bottom of the screen there's: HOLD LINE1 LINE2 LINE3 LOCAL SIGNAL ... which correspond to some of those rubber membrane keys I was talking about. If you hold down SHIFT while pressing the LclDir key, you get the setup mode, which allows you to change options such as the brightness, contrast, ringer volume, buzzer volume, terminal mode (local/line), baud rate, parity, flow control, Aux. baud rate, backspace and break key codes, etc. This thing is really, really neat. Oh yeah, and one more thing ... Hitting the LclDir button alone brings up a LOCAL TELEPHONE DIRECTORY mode, where you can add/edit/delete phone numbers stored inside the terminal. Any stored phone numbers are displayed along side the rubber membrane keys to the right and left of the display, so that if you were to hit the corresponding key, it would suppossedly dial that number for you. Now, what I'm trying to find out is information regarding the pinouts of the ports on the side and bottom (obviously). If anyone knows *anything* about these (or similiar) units, even if you've seen them in use before and can tell me where, I would be *extremely* grateful. Thanks very very much in advance! Xmal Havoc 215-4T xmalh@martnet.com ------------------------------ From: warren.williams@worldafrican.com (W.K. Williams) Subject: ISDN Standards in South Africa Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 02:10:01 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services I have some co-workers in South Africa who are telling me they have ISDN service over there. My question is, is ISDN in South Africa compatible with ISDN in the US? Can I dial their number from my ISDN line in the US and get a digital connection at 64/128Kb? Warren Williams ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Florida Overlay Hearing Coming Up Date: 18 Jan 1998 03:39:48 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates I propose to comment at a public hearing to be held by the Florida Public Service Commission, in favor of an overlay as proposed by GTE, and in opposition to another split, as proposed by subscribers in a workshop last week. Unfortunately, having just lost a major client, _and_ having been in a car accident last week, I'm not in much shape to research my arguments coherently. Would those of you who are proponents of overlays, either for technical or economic reasons, be so kind as to take a moment and drop me a note with commentary or pointers to why overlays are better. I _know_ the primary arguments, I just need some backup. And some ibuprofen. I know I'm asking y'all to do my homework for me, it's a favor I appreciate. I'll summarize my presentation to the Digest. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth High Technology Systems Consulting Ashworth Designer Linux: Where Do You Want To Fly Today? & Associates ka1fjx/4 Crack. It does a body good. +1 813 790 7592 jra@baylink.com http://rc5.distributed.net NIC: jra3 ------------------------------ From: nospam.damos@cyberramp.net (D. Larry Martin) Subject: Re: New MCI FCC Charge Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 12:05:21 GMT Organization: posted via: CyberRamp.net, Dallas, TX (214) 343-3333 On Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:27:46 GMT, mcharry@erols.com (John McHarry) wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 23:43:11 -0500, Jack Decker THIS.com> wrote: >> I got a bill for long distance usage on my residence line from MCI >> today. >> A notation on the bill offers this explanation: >> The FCC is now requiring MCI and all other long distance companies to >> pay a fee to the local phone companies based on the number of lines >> subscribed to each carrier for originating and terminating your long >> distance calls. As a result, MCI will pass along a subscriber fee to >> each usage customer." >> But after that, I got to wondering -- if the carriers are charged >> based on number of lines subscribed, and my line isn't subscribed to >> MCI (nor to any other carrier), then why should I be paying MCI this >> fee? > Actually, it is even worse. Your local carrier will charge you for > your non PICed line. (MCI should not.) > I think what is going on is a lowering of the LEC's skim off of the > long distance charges (IXCs pay more to the LECs to originate and > terminate a call than it costs them to carry it across the country.) > Since this was a local service subsidy (or so they say) it is being > replaced with per user charges. The government doesn't get any of it. > The LEC pockets the whole wad. Actually, access charges were designed to recover a portion of the costs associated with providing local service. It is true that IXC's pay a significant amount of money to LECs to originate and terminate calls. The cost of providing local service is incredibly expensive. IXC's can run high capacity circuits to each of their POPs. Consider that your local telephone company ran a pair of wires to each and every home on your block, in your neighborhood, in your city. The cost to put that plant into service and maintain it is significantly more expensive than running high caps across the country. Now, that said, a large part of Carrier Common Line access charges are a subsidy paid for by the IXC's (and ultimately the end user.) If the true cost to provide local service was charged directly to the end user, the cost would result in a significant number of people not being able to afford service. Since the FCC also has an interest in providing "universal service", they can't (or won't) mandate an increase in base telephone charges. They accomplished this by leaving the primary residential and single line business Subscriber Line Charge exactly the same as it has been. BTW, as a side note, the per minute of use Carrier Common Line charges were reduced by an equivalent amount as will be recovered from the Presubscribed Interexchange Carrier Charge (PICC). The LEC is not making out like a bandit as your post implies. D. Larry Martin ------------------------------ From: craig@rmit.EDU.AU (Craig Macbride) Subject: Re: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA Date: 19 Jan 1998 12:45:53 GMT Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. David Schuetz writes: > Thinking it was a problem with the card, I asked why, and she said > that "AT&T doesn't take all Visa cards, just certain ones." She told me > that a while back they'd dropped all Visa, and now they're accepting (she > thought) at least the AT&T Universal cards. Quite a while. Over a year ago, they wouldn't accept Visa cards. So, I used a MasterCard instead. > * Why the heck would they want to do this? Seems pretty stupid to me > (they lost my business). They told me over a year ago that Visa wouldn't authorise them to do it at all, probably because the risk of fraud is _enormous_! Their system is automated, yet doesn't require a PIN to be entered. This is totally absurd. > * Can they even do this? I thought Visa was Visa ("It's everywhere you > want to be"). If a retail outlet puts a visa logo in their window, don't > they have to take *ALL* Visa cards? (provided they're legit/current/etc.) If AT&T chooses to accept its own Visa card, do the processing themselves, and take the risks of fraud themselves, instead of sharing it with the Visa organisation, I suspect they can. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If a merchant takes some VISA cards, he > has to take all VISA cards (assuming sales authorization approval, > etc). This sounds to me like a continuation of the redlining AT&T does > with regards credit cards (and its own calling card) from payphones in > 'bad' neighborhoods in inner-city areas. Wow! That might explain something I had long wondered about. A couple of times, my MasterCard didn't work on AT&T's system either, despite having worked in other locations. I just assumed their system was wonky, but maybe it was deliberate discrimination. Scary. And a stupid way for them to lose business. > telco calling card to call any nice, English-speaking country in the > world, i.e. Australia, the UK, etc. Why, thank you for noticing us. :-) However, I would point out that AT&T's rates to call here are mind-bogglingly high. To call here through AT&T, last time I checked, cost about three times what it costs me to call Australia from the US and have the call billed to my home account, which, in turn is about three times the charge that is possible through some low-cost companies! And that's the standard rate, before the credit card charges!! > [ to less "nice" places ] You have to use a private phone to call those > countries so that there can be some absolute recourse for billing > and collection. Of course, if they were using a PIN on credit cards (yes, I realise this is the US banks' faults, not AT&T's) and checking the availability of funds, there should be no question of the caller being able to pay! By the way, do you wonder why I was using AT&T at all? I tried to recharge an MCI calling card which said on the back that it could be recharged by calling a particular number. When I called, I was told that those particular cards couldn't be recharged! Sprint allows credit-card calls from some hotels. (I've done it.) However, they don't allow it from general phones, or from other hotels. Also, their operators and their supervisors will deny that it happens anywhere at all!! (Of course, if that were true, I'd like the money back that appeared on my credit card statement marked "Sprint 012M ...", because they really don't charge calls to credit cards, do they?) Is their a single long-distance carrier in the USA that isn't totally incompetent, doesn't lie, and doesn't constantly to go way out of its way to refuse to let you give it money? ... Or even one out of three?! Craig Macbride URL: http://www.bf.rmit.edu.au/~craigm Carla: "Yes, Captain, destiny is calling." Kremmen: "Tell them I'll call them back." [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sprint has gotten sued many times for the way they deal with calling card calls, i.e. denying service in an arbitrary way based on their notions about where fraud is likely to occur, etc. Like AT&T, they don't care; suits mean nothing, there are so many of them against the telcos at any given time. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 15:32:45 -0500 From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to David Schuetz : > It is very likely that something about your call triggered an alarm > to them. It might be the hotel where you were at has had a high > fraud rate. It might be the particular VISA series. It could have > been the time of day, or the destination point. Or it might have been > an operator acting ignorant. > The cute part is how the operators are instructed to lie to the > customer about it. The operator is NEVER to say there is a strong > possibility you are making a fraud call. She is NEVER to say 'there is > problem with calls from your ethnic neighborhood in Chicago to > (whatever) country and AT&T has a hard time collecting payment.' > Saying those things could easily lead to a discrimination lawsuit, > etc. So instead, the operator has a few lies she is instructed to say, > which ninety percent of the time or so will shag away the customer > with no further ado. The three most common are: > 1) The AT&T calling card is not accepted in (whatever) country. > 2) The authorization system (to get approval for the charge) is down > right now; no way to handle the call. > 3) AT&T does not accept that particular type of VISA/MC/Amex. > If you answer back to (1) saying this is a SENT PAID call and the > method of payment is of no concern to the foreign telco, sometimes the > operator will 'accidentally' hit the release key and dump your > call. Other times she may very haughtily refer you to a supervisor > who you spend ten minutes waiting on hold for if she answers at all. > If you answer (2) saying the initial charge for the call is under the > 'floor limit' and that normally all that happens at first is > verifying the check-digit, with approval obtained ONLY after the call > reaches a certain dollar-amount, you'll probably get the same > response as (1). This raises an old but interesting issue. Various companies have a de facto points system, where various factors such as location are added in, and often an actual data base of past problems, so they can update their points system data base. This can be used to set a higher/lower price to some customers (car/life/health insurers do this), or to refuse business from some customers, or to scrutinize some customers. (Try arriving in a sweat late for a flight, buying a ticket on the spot, even paying cash. I have done this. It gets them worried - and I have WASP appearance and a faint Swedish/British accent!). The general situation seems to be that this is usually legal, using location etc. (even if it correlates strongly with national origin), unless you are a bank, whereas ACTUALLY using national origin etc. is not legal, even if it demonstrably correlates to problem situations, is illegal. (This does not always stick it to the poor, far from it. Try buying car insurance in Beverly Hills. The average fender bender -- even if your car is cheap -- costs big bucks, and your rate will reflect that!) In fact, sometimes it is even REQUIRED BY LAW, such as when local authorities insist that some pay phones block incoming calls or refuse coin calls. Now, all of the above is descriptive of what the legal situation IS. People will vary widely in what they think it SHOULD BE. I will try NOT to participate in any such debate, there is no consensus anyway. Nils Andersson ------------------------------ From: Darrell Hale Subject: Re: Teleport ATT Merger Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 13:46:04 -0800 Organization: Texas Networking, Inc. Reply-To: dehale@texas.net I find it interesting that ATT is buying a company that uses elements that are non Lucent such as DEX 600's of ACC and U.S. Wats and I believe that TCG has DMS-500s. Just thought that represents a big change in the ATT attitude towards flexibility at least from an operations side. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #15 *****************************