Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id QAA00489; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 16:56:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 16:56:11 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199802082156.QAA00489@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #28 TELECOM Digest Sun, 8 Feb 98 16:56:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 28 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Two Michigan Bills Affecting Sales Calls Raise Ire (Tad Cook Fargo, N.D.-Based Internet-Based Marketing Group Vanishes (Tad Cook) PUC Texas Rules on ISP Calls (Linc Madison) V.90 "56K" Modems Accepted by ITU (Ed Ellers) ITU Announces 56K Modem Standard (oldbear@arctos.com) Possible Scam? (Stanri@worldnet.att.net) UCLA Short Course on "Mobile Satellite Communications" (Bill Goodin) LEC Billing for Non-Communications Charges (Bruce L. Wilson) It's Not Distinctive Ringing, But What is it? (Laurence V. Marks) Last Laugh: Those Spotless Finns (James Bellaire) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Two Michigan Bills Affecting Sales Calls Raise Ire Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 22:26:51 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) By Deborah Solomon, Detroit Free Press Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News Feb. 7--Some small business owners are upset with two bills being considered by the Legislature that would require telephone solicitors to pay a $200 one-time fee, register with the state and post a $25,000 surety bond to operate here. The politicians who proposed the legislation say it's intended to help consumers avoid being bothered and scammed by telemarketers, but some small business owners say the bills would place too heavy a burden on companies. "These new regulations and fee structures will impede business growth in the state," said Ann Parker, director of government relations for the Small Business Association of Michigan. "We understand that there are bad actors out there, but we don't think restrictions on legitimate businesses is the answer." This is the second bill aimed at telemarketers to be introduced in the Michigan House of Representatives in recent months. Last year, the House overwhelmingly passed legislation that would require telemarketers to buy a list of Michigan residents who don't want to be solicited on the phone. Any company that called a person on the list could be fined up to $250, and consumers also could sue the company for up to $500. The Senate is considering the bill. "Some companies, primarily smaller ones that specialize in landscaping, vinyl siding or asphalting driveways typically use the phone to solicit business," Parker said. "These laws will hurt them." She said many small businesses can't afford to pay a $200 fee or get a $25,000 surety bond. And restricting which consumers can be called would destroy many companies whose business relies on "cold calls." Legislators say it's the consumers who are being harmed by telemarketers, many of whom engage in scams and call people at all hours of the day. They say the $25,000 surety bond is necessary to ensure that a company that scams consumers pays its fine. "I was home trying to clean house on Saturday and I received eleven phone calls trying to get me to take a credit card," said Michigan Rep. Eileen DeHart, D-Westland. DeHart sponsored the legislation that passed the House last year and said she supports the bill that's being considered now. That bill was sponsored by Rep. Paul Wojno, D-Warren. "Telemarketing is becoming absolutely horrible, especially with seniors who are targets," DeHart said. She said neither bill would prohibit legitimate companies from doing business by phone. "The $200 annual fee is just pennies compared to what these companies make off people," she said. Right now, companies that want to sell a product by phone are regulated by the Federal Trade Commission, not the state. If either bill becomes law, companies would have to register with the state's Department of Consumer and Industry Services, and the Attorney General's Office would handle complaints. The FTC already places restrictions on telemarketers, such as the hours they can call -- 8 am. to 9 p.m. The FTC also requires that telemarketers disclose the reason for the call and prohibits them from calling people who have asked not to be bothered. Violators face fines and other punishment. ------------------------------ Subject: Fargo, N.D.-Based Internet-Based Marketing Group Vanishes Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 02:24:10 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) By Jason Skog, Duluth News-Tribune, Minn. Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News Feb. 3--AdverWorld Inc., the Internet-based, multilevel marketing group that once whipped hundreds of wide-eyed Northlanders into a cash-crazed frenzy, seems dead. Calls to phone lines once flooded with people eager to join the upstart Fargo, N.D., firm now reach telephone numbers that have been disconnected. The effusively confident corporate officers, who once claimed to have "Adversomnia" because they were so excited about the potential, have quit and left town, leaving little or no forwarding information. And the company's former representatives -- people who paid $79 a month for a chance to profit by selling World Wide Web pages and recruiting others to do the same -- have mixed feelings. The company's fall has been difficult to track. AdverWorld's Web site hasn't been updated since July. Unless taken off a computer server, www.adverworld.com could linger in cyberspace indefinitely. The Duluth News-Tribune's efforts to contact former officers through phone books, directory assistance and leads from former business neighbors have been unsuccessful. Sean Kramer was once Adver-World's vice president of marketing. He couldn't be located in the Northland, but a Sean Kramer is listed as working with a California Internet advertising firm named Big Book Direct. A biography on the company's Web page says Kramer once was "cofounder of an Internet services company that generated over 40,000 customers in less than one year." Calls to Kramer's office weren't returned. More than a year ago, AdverWorld was drawing hundreds to seminars in Fargo, the Twin Cities, Denver and other cities. One in Duluth drew nearly 500, making the company's talk of income potential a hot topic in area bars, diners and offices. By having $79 a month withdrawn automatically from your bank account, you could purchase a Web page and reserve a spot in the company's matrix, a pyramidshaped compensation plan. The monthly fee also gave individuals the opportunity to sell others on AdverWorld's product and potential. To some, it smelled like a pyramid scheme. Almost immediately, attorneys general in North Dakota and Minnesota received inquiries. The North Dakota attorney general's office had declined to comment on the company. But on Monday, Parrell Grossman, an attorney in the Consumer Protection Division, said an investigation is under way. He would say nothing more. Gary Carlson liked the sound of AdverWorld's potential, becoming a representative almost immediately. So did thousands of others. The Duluth pull-tab operator stayed with AdverWorld for nine months, investing $79 a month and taking in an average of $50 a month from signing up others and selling Web pages. He said he thinks AdverWorld was legitimate, but lacked follow up. "We were going on the assumption that the company was going to properly train us," Carlson said. "They didn't do it." He said he's not bitter and only decided to quit when it looked like the company would be changing ownership along with the compensation structure. "A lot of people just decided to get out," Carlson said. According to AdverWorld, the company grew to 100 full-time employees and sales in excess of $2 million a month. AdverWorld also claimed to have 20,000 customers nationwide and enough requests for Web pages that they had to work nearly 24 hours a day. "What I think happened is that they got stars in their eyes too quickly because of the unbelievable growth right away," Carlson said. Talk of a change in ownership was partially true, but a Jacksonville, Fla., Web site production company canceled the deal at the last minute. "We were not interested in purchasing the company, but we were interested in purchasing the Web sites," said Ron Milburn, president of NRG Network Inc. Milburn said the deal fell through when he saw the number and quality of the company's active Web pages. NRG did conduct one of AdverWorld's automatic withdrawals from salespeople's bank accounts, but that was before NRG knew of the questions swirling around AdverWorld. "The bank held the funds to make sure that the complaints were settled," Milburn said. "We are in the process of trying to decide what to do with that money, but that money is in the bank, and we have no intention of keeping that money." AdverWorld representatives were required to authorize the automatic withdrawals. It took Gayle Koop of Duluth several weeks to cancel that arrangement after she and her husband decided to quit. In roughly 13 months, the Koops never earned a dime. They also never tried to sell a Web page or recruit others. The Koops were hoping for a cushy spot in the "matrix" where people below them could do the work and they could earn bonuses. That never happened. "We spent a lot of money making no money," Koop said. ------------------------------ Reply-To: Linc Madison From: Linc Madison Subject: PUC Texas Rules on ISP Calls Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 16:34:58 -0500 PUCT Commissioners rule that Internet calls are local Directs SWB to make back payments with interest to Time Warner (Austin, TX, Feb. 5, 1998) -- Texas Public Utility Commissioners today unanimously ruled that calls to Internet service providers (ISPs) are local calls, overturning a staff arbitrator's decision that such calls are interstate long distance traffic. In addition, they ruled that Southwestern Bell (SWB) must reimburse Time Warner Communications for costs incurred since June 1997 with interest. Commissioners decided that the destination, not the content, determines whether a call is local. "The decision today that calls to locally based Internet service providers are local is supported by the law, by the facts and by common sense," Chairman Pat Wood, III said in agreement with fellow commissioners Judy Walsh and Patricia Curran. The case was brought to the PUC by Time Warner Communications, a competitor in the local telecommunications market which serves ISPs. The Time Warner interconnection agreement with Southwestern Bell, which was signed in 1996 and renegotiated in September 1997, includes an agreement for reciprocal compensation. Time Warner contended that Southwestern Bell Telephone Company had withheld approximately $490,000 per month in reciprocal compensation funds due them since June 1997. Commissioners said that back payments be made with interest at 5.52 percent. Waller Creek Communications, another local service competitor, is seeking an interconnection agreement with Southwestern Bell and will be affected by the outcome of the Time Warner issue. In the competitive arena, telephone companies reimburse each other for local calls made by their customers to customers of the other company. The payment goes from the company whose customer initiates the call to the company whose customer receives the call. These reciprocal compensation agreements include per-minute charges determined in interconnection agreements, contracts laying out the prices, terms and conditions for the companies to do business together. Southwestern Bell, which serves about 78 percent of the state's access lines, contended that the issue of reciprocal compensation agreements needed examination. They argued that calls made to ISPs should not be considered local calls and therefore should not be subject to reciprocal compensation agreements that apply to local calls. The PUC staff arbitrator, Howard Siegel, decided in January that calls to Internet service providers "are in fact interstate in nature" and the local companies are jointly providing interstate access. He ruled such calls should not be subject to reciprocal compensation because there is no local revenue to share. He based his award, in part, on the jurisdiction of the Internet connections that are carried on the telephone companies' networks. He also said that competitive telephone companies who have a number of ISPs as business customers could be "gaming the system" to receive additional payments from Southwestern Bell. The arbitrator pointed out that reciprocal compensation agreements assume there is significant two-way flow of traffic between the incumbent local telephone company (Southwestern Bell) and the competitive provider (Time Warner). But with Internet service providers almost all the calls are incoming. That means that the competing company serving an ISP (Time Warner) would be entitled to large compensation payments on the incoming calls to the ISP numbers from Southwestern Bell customers while owing Southwestern Bell little in return. The Commissioners said that the basis for reciprocal compensation payments needs to be reviewed in the context of all telephone costs. "In this case, as in expanded area service, universal service funds and other cases we'll discuss today, we see that we're still driven by old world regulation," Chairman Wood said. "The time is ripe to restructure inter-industry billing. If we don't, we will constantly be in the same frustrating reactive mode in future dockets as we are today." "In the future, I would not find it in the public interest for reciprocal compensation rates to be calculated this way," said Commissioner Walsh. "The Internet is evolving and may be viewed differently in the future." Commissioner Curran said that calls that connect to the Internet are "different creatures" which may call for different rates. She noted that existing contracts should not be changed. About 14 other state commissions have considered this same issue and decided that Internet service provider calls are local and subject to reciprocal compensation agreements. In December the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruled that ISP calls are not subject to access charges, the charges that long distance carriers pay for connection to the local telephone network. The FCC has not ruled on the local call or reciprocal compensation questions, although it has a pending case that may address these issues. The PUC's decision today does not affect local telephone service rates. ISP subscriptions are not regulated by the PUC. In Texas' changing regulatory environment, the PUC facilitates competition and customer choice while regulating electric and telephone utilities to ensure that rates, operations and services are just and reasonable for customers. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: V.90 "56K" Modems Accepted by ITU Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 21:00:27 -0500 The International Telecommunication Union agreed today on the technical specifications for PCM modems (also known as 56K modems) and has initiated the formal approval process. The new Recommendation, designated V.90, is expected to be widely used for applications such as Internet and on-line service access. V.90 modems are designed for connections which are digital at one end and have only one digital-to-analogue conversion. Download speeds of up to 56,000 bits per second (bit/s) are possible, depending on telephone line conditions, with upload speeds of up to 33,600 bit/s. Manufacturers currently producing modems based on proprietary schemes have already stated they will rapidly migrate to the new standard. Work began on the development of V.90 (previously referred to as V.pcm) in the ITU-T in March 1997. "This is the shortest period of time ever taken for an ITU-T modem Recommendation to achieve 'determination' approval status, and demonstrates a commitment by the ITU-T to respond quickly to urgent market needs", said Mr. P.A. Probst, Chairman of Study Group 16. The V.90 modem harmonizes the two competing proposals submitted last year. Customers who have purchased 56kbps modems based on either technology may be able to get software to make their devices compatible with the new ones developed on the V.90 standard. ------------------------- V.90 Upgrade Announcements: 3Com (USRobotics, Megahertz) -- will have free upgrades available for all of its X2 modems; it expects that modems sold with X2 capability will take a firmware upgrade, while those sold as 33.6 modems and upgraded to X2 may need a hardware upgrade which will be supplied at no charge. Details will be posted on February 16 at http://www.3com.com/56k/. Diamond Multimedia (Supra) -- hasn't yet posted a release on its Web site, but previously has said that free firmware upgrades will be available for its 56K modems. Hayes -- has said previously that "Hayes' 56K Satisfaction program guarantees this upgrade will be available at no cost to all Hayes 56K desktop modem customers regardless of whether the upgrade requires a hardware or software change." Hayes' 56K Standard Page is at http://www.practinet.com, the former Practical Peripherals URL. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 08:50:02 -0500 From: The Old Bear Subject: ITU Announces 56K Modem Standard As reported in {CNN QuickNews Update} on Sunday morning, 2/8/98: INTERNATIONAL AGENCY ADOPTS A NEW MODEM STANDARD The International Telecommunication Union adopted on Saturday a new standard that will enable computer modems to operate almost twice as fast as they do now. New modems, which are already in production by major manufacturers, will operate at the speed of 56,000 bits per second, compared to current 33,600 bits. So far, manufacturers have been using two different standards that could not work with each other. The new standard is expected to boost modem sales to $75 million a year by 2000. See: < http://cnn.com/TECH/computing/9802/06/modem.ap/index.html > ------------------------------ From: stanri@worldnet.att.net (Stan) Subject: Possible Scam? Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 21:18:45 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Someone sent me this the other day. I told her I didn't believe it was true. Is it? -------------- On Saturday 24 January 1998, Naval Air Station, Joint Reserve Base, New Orleans' Quarterdeck received a telephone call from an individual identifying himself as an AT&T Service Technician that was running a test on our telephone lines. He stated that to complete the test the Customer should touch nine (9), zero (0), pound sign (#) and hang up. Luckily, the Customer was suspicious and refused. Upon contacting the telephone company we were informed that by pushing 90# you end up giving the individual that called you access to your telephone line and this allows the scammer to place a long distance telephone call, with the charge appearing on your telephone bill. We were further informed that this scam has been originating from inmate pay phones at many of the local jails/prisons around the country. Please "pass the > word." If anyone should call you claiming to be an AT&T Service Technician,' refuse any requests that you dial any numbers. Also ask for THEIR callback number and the name of their supervisor. In turn, report this to your local telephone company. ------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Is it possible? Well ... maybe, depend- ing on the configuration of the telephone switch used by the call recipient. We hear these stories from time to time, and there are always important details left out, such as if the recipient of the bogus call is on a centrex with some specialized wiring (very possible in a military environment); if the recipient's organization is served by one or another of several voicemail systems which may or may not have a bug which allows a call to be transferred to an outside line or an attendant, etc. Naturally, these stories never mention if the recipient was expected to press the switchhook first to get new dial tone or if he was expected to just press the keys in the middle of the conversation. I am reminded of the well-meaning but dim-witted memo which went around for years -- maybe it still is -- sent by corporate telecom departments warning employees against returning calls made to their pagers giving a 212-976 (or was it 212-540) number to be called back. While perhaps an important warning in New York City and the immediate environs, it was a total waste to talk about in other parts of the country for the simple reason you generally cannot call a 976 number outside your local area code. I'd say the important thing to remember here is not the specifics of any single instance -- because there are too many unknown variables involved to be able to establish a definite rule -- but rather, don't listen to fools who call you on the phone with various requests. And don't feel a bit concerned that you might be deemed uncooperative or rude to the caller. Bear in mind that a telco employee dealing with a large company has usually only one person to work with: the person in that company assigned to handle telecom stuff. He is not going to be going around to individual employees saying 'now you do this and you do that ... ' or 'tell me your password to do such and such ...' The telco employee and the telecom person for the company work together, and that is it. If you have problems with the phone service at your workstation/desk, etc you tell the person at your company about it; he either fixes it or gets telco involved. You don't bypass him and go to telco, and telco does not bypass him and come to you. If you need to get involved, the person at your company will discuss it with you. Ditto the switchboard operator: at a company whose telecom is well-managed, individual employees do not talk to a telco operator. They talk to the company operator, who if s/he is at all well-trained in handling calls, simply handles it. You need something that will involve special billing or incur an additional charge? Then you tell the company PBX/centrex operator; let that person handle the paper- work, etc so that the company is always on top of its expenses for the phone service, and always aware of who is calling whom. In summary, when a call such as described arrives on your extension at work, try to supress the giggles while you respond, "have you discussed this with Ms. Nameless, the company operator, or Mr. NoName, the telcom manager here? Let me transfer your call to them now so you can discuss what you need ... " Watch how fast that call gets terminated. And while we are on the topic, be alert to the 'office supply department' scam. That's the one where you get a call and the voice on the other end says something like, "Hi, (your first name), this is (her phone name) in the supply room. I need you to give me the serial number and model on your copy machine so I can make sure we have the right type of toner/paper in stock." What she really wants that information for is so that a telemarketer can call back a day or two later to someone else at your company with a specific pitch for the toner/paper supplies your machine uses. Permutations on this involve the model name and serial number of the printer attached to the computer, ditto for the office fax machine, etc. They are all banking on the fact that you are not going to question a 'fellow employee' in a large company who calls you by your first name using her first name asking for some help in getting her 'records up to date'. Yeah, you bet. 'Records' they have no business knowing about. It is amazing to me how many trusting souls there are in the world who assume that a voice on the other end of the phone line is legit- imate and entitled to whatever it asks for. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Mobile Satellite Communications" Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:05:57 -0800 On May 4-7, 1998, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Mobile Satellite Communications", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Bruce R. Elbert, MSEE, MBA, Hughes Space and Communications International; Raymond C.V. Macario, PhD, University of Wales, Swansea; and Jeffrey Maul, MSEE, Arthur D. Little. Each participant receives the text, "Cellular Radio: Principles and Design", by R.C.V Macario (McGraw Hill, 2nd ed., 1997), and extensive course notes. By properly integrating space and ground segments, the new class of Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) operators are providing a wide range of personal communication services to users around the world. This course provides a comprehensive review of the technologies and systems that form the foundation for this new commercial space application. Lectures cover current geostationary earth orbit (GEO) satellites as well as the leading non-GEO systems now being launched, and resolve issues relating to satellite communication subsystem design, integration of the MSS network into the PSTN, and the likely design of the handheld terminal. Basics of radio communications and space systems are also thoroughly reviewed. The course is intended to provide systems engineers and telecommunications specialists with an understanding of how MSS services are being developed and delivered throughout the world. The course fee is $1495, which includes extensive course materials and the textbook. These materials are for participants only, and are not for sale. For additional information and a complete course description, please contact Marcus Hennessy at: (310) 825-1047 (310) 206-2815 fax mhenness@unex.ucla.edu http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses This course may also be presented on-site at company locations. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 00:30:45 -0500 From: blw1540@aol.com (Bruce L. Wilson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: LEC Billing for Non-Communications Charges I finally got a response from a knowledgable person at US West after making a call to my local Congressman's local staff director. (I've been having a running battle of sorts with US West over charges on my conservatorship ward's phone bill from "ESBI" for "message retrieve" and from "USP&C" for "psychic help" which I've refused to pay and which I've demanded be removed from her bill.) I was told this activity is unregulated by the FCC and state utilities board ... then I got to thinking ... We think of the telcos as regulated, but they've actually been sheltered from some regulations applicable to others because everything they've done has been within the FCC's and state commissions' jurisdictions ... things such as the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and comparable state statutes ... and I'm curious as to what others might think about it. Subject to refreshing my memory of the specifics, I'd argue that the LEC's are mere debt collectors, obligated under the FDCPA to (1) provide substantiation of disputed charges and (2) cease collection efforts if told the debt in question won't be paid. I might also argue that various disclosures are required pursuant to it. What do you all think? Bruce Wilson [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Telcos are not 'mere debt collectors' for the simple reason that the billing of charges not specifically of their own origin make up only a very small, insignificant part of their activities; a part of their activities required of them under existing telecom law. A 'debt collector' by definition is an organi- zation or person who voluntarily engages in the collection of third- party -- i.e. not incurred under his auspices as a 'merchant' -- debts as his principle, or exclusive business activity. An attorney who among other activities collects debts on a third-party basis for one or more of his clients was previously not considered a 'debt collector' under the legal sense of the term; but for the past few years attornies have been subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the same as any 'mere debt collector'. The FDCPA clearly gives a legal definition for 'debt collector'. A telco is not one. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lmarks@raleigh.ibm.com (Laurence V. Marks) Subject: It's Not Distinctive Ringing, But What is it? Date: 8 Feb 1998 02:46:58 GMT Organization: IBM Networking Hardware Division RTP, NC Reply-To: lmarks@raleigh.ibm.com (Laurence V. Marks) I would like to find specifications or definitions for a particular (POTS) phone service. It's the service where you have a single line with multiple Directory Numbers (DNs) and the instruments ring with a different cadence depending on which number was dialed. In North Carolina, this service is marketed as Ringmaster. In Maryland, it's marketed as Ident-A-Ring. I __thought__ this service was called Distinctive Ringing, so I ordered the Bellcore publication: TR-TSY-000219 CLASS FEATURE: DISTINCTIVE RINGING/CALL WAITING dated Jun 1993. It turns out that this publication describes a different feature, in which you record a series of numbers with the switch (e.g., your mother-in-law), and when you are called by any of those numbers, your phone rings (or call-waiting beeps) with a unique cadence. That is, the distinctive ringing is based on the Calling Party DN, not the Called Party DN. (This document does hint that there may be feature-interaction with the multiple DN feature, but does not give a reference to any publication.) Then I looked through our LSSGR (admittedly a little old -- it's 1985-1987). I read all of the Feature Service Descriptions (FSDs), and again I found DR/CW described as a service in which the subscriber enters numbers at the switch, and again I found (in one or two places) cryptic remarks regarding the multiple DN feature, but no references to publications. I would really like to get this specification. Can anyone help? Laurence V. Marks IBM Corp. - Research Triangle Park, NC [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There are two 'distinctive ringing' type services. One is triggered by the calling number (you list up to ten numbers, which when they call you, force a distinctive ring. This depends on the ability of the switch serving you to know what number is calling; i.e. the call-screening, caller-id, return last call received type of thing. The other service doesn't require the switch to have any clue at all about the number calling you. All it is dealing with is a 'party line' type arrangement, where all the parties on the line terminate on the same wires and same instruments. Like the old party lines, two or more different phone numbers are assigned to the same line, (I think the maximum is four) and each number causes the phone to ring with its own specific cadence. If any one of the numbers is in use, then all the numbers are busy. The first service is intended to isolate and identify specific people who are either VIPs (or nuisances) in your life. The special ring (all such parties cause the same special ring) alerts you to a call you either want to take right away or not take at all. Why people would use this instead of simply gleaning the same -- actually more specific -- information by looking at the caller-id readout I do not understand. With this scheme you don't know if it is your hateful mother-in-law or your new boss calling; just that it is someone outside the normal flow in your life. Caller-id would answer the same questions more precisely. The second service is intended for two or more people sharing the same phone line or a person running a business at home on the same phone line as used for his personal calls. The ringing cadence helps detirmine the appropriate answer-phrase. While caller-id adds to the usefulness of this service, it is not a replacement since calls to any of the numbers (the main one or the numbers camped on) could come from anywhere. Why, precisely, a person would try to run a business out of his home on the same physical talk-to-only-one- person-at-a-time instrument used by his kids, his wife and himself is beyond me. I'd prefer the flexibility of two or more lines/instru- ments hunting back and forth to each other anytime. This service is good if you have a line dedicated to 'data'; a number for the fax and a number for the computer can ring into a device which can tell the difference and route the calls is available. When you order either of these, they go by various names such as 'multi-line ring' 'distinctive-ring', 'identa-ring', 'identa-call' and others. Make sure the business office understands exactly which you want. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 07:48:07 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Last Laugh: Those Spotless Finns This might be of interest to the Telecom DIGEST crowd: From: phil.henry@telcore.demon.co.uk (phil henry) Newsgroups: uk.telecom.mobile Subject: Those spotless Finns Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 21:46:34 GMT Organization: telcore Message-ID: <34d78fb8.39394153@news.demon.co.uk> Reply-To: phil.henry@telcore.demon.co.uk Telecom Finland is testing a GSM service that allows subscribers to dial a premium rate number when they drive into a car wash. The network activates the car wash and bills them. phil henry ------------ James E. Bellaire (JEB6) bellaire@tk.com Telecom Indiana Webpage http://members.iquest.net/~bellaire/telecom/ * Updated February 1998 with new landline maps and NPANXX lists for IN * ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #28 ***************************** From: editor@telecom-digest.org Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id TAA12317; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 19:48:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 19:48:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802090048.TAA12317@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #29 TELECOM Digest Sun, 8 Feb 98 19:48:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 29 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Nextel Communications (Zoran K. Basich) Cellular Telephone Basics and Telephone History (Tom Farley) Re: Payphones and Up-Front Pricing (Anthony Argyriou) Cell Bandwidth in the SF Bay Area (Wulf Losee) Re: 877 Replication Report (Aaron Woolfson) Re: US Warns Junk E-mailers Against Scam Offerings (Adam H. Kerman) Re: Area Code 225 for Baton Rouge LA (Chris Boone) Blocked 800 Calls From Payphones and Hotels? (edm@barneyboller.com) 800 Number Billing Scams (Ron Walter) Long Distance Cost Structures (James M. Kaplan) Re: New MCI FCC Charge (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls (Joe Novosel) Re: 617/781 Mandatory, and New Boston Books (oldbear@arctos.com) Re: FCC Surcharge and Complaints (Derek Balling) 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: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 11:02:32 -0800 From: Zoran K Basich Reply-To: miscltd@pacbell.net Subject: Nextel Communications I am looking for information on Nextel Communications on the problems that they have had with the cellular service that has been offered, especially regarding roaming across country. I would greatly appreciate any help on this matter. Thank you in advance. Tyler Basich ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 15:18:17 -0800 From: Tom Farley Subject: Cellular Telephone Basics and Telephone History Hello, Pat. Long time no e-mail. I've finally built my own web site. It's at http://midtown.net/tomfarley. I've revised and put up an article on cellular telephone basics that originated with private line magazine. I've managed to put in most of the black and white illustrations that went along with it. I think it's fairly comprehensive and it is at http://midtown.net/tomfarley/Cellbasics.html I've also put up a longish article on telephone history. This was to be the first chapter of a book on telecom I did not finished. It, too, is illustrated and all original.It is at http://midtown.net/History1.html There is also a clip art collection at the site with many telecom related images that will do well for web work and just plain interest. That's at http://midtown.net/tomfarley/clipart.html. Best of luck to you and the entire telecom community. Tom Farley [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Some of us had been wondering where you went and what you were doing now. The issues of {Private Line} that you edited and published made very good reading. Two or three issues of your e-zine are on file in the Telecom Archives. I hope we will be hearing more from you soon. Your article on 'prison phone technology' was really great and is one of the items on file in the archives. Please stay in touch! PAT] ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: Re: Payphones and Up-Front Pricing Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 20:26:00 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com David W. Levenson wrote: > A more interesting problem is that the price of a call often depends > upon who is paying it. An AT&T customer who subscribes to OneRate(tm) > service will pay less than an AT&T customer who does not. But the > price quote offered via the network must be given before the customer > enters the billing information. For this case, the rule allows a > carrier who cannot announce the actual price to quote the highest > price it might charge for the call ... This seems to me to be legitimate grounds for complaint about the FCC's proposed rules -- would you want to be the person at AT&T who has to explain to all their OneRate/etc customers why the rate quoted is _not_ the rate they're really going to pay? Of course, AT&T doesn't seem to be complaining about that. Anthony Argyriou http://www.alphageo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 07:54:01 -0800 From: Wulf Losee Reply-To: wulf@CERF.NET Subject: Cell Bandwidth in the SF Bay Area Recently I moved north from LA to the East Bay Area with my AirTouch cellular phone. I haven't discontinued my LA service, yet, and I decided to accept roaming charges until I get new cellular service up here in the Bay Area. However, I've discovered that it's almost impossible to get a phone call in on the cells up here. It will take me over twenty tries before I find a cell that isn't busy. I'm hoping this is an AirTouch problem -- which will disappear if I were to move over to one of the other carriers. I don't want to move over to another cellular provider and discover I can't use their service most of the time. My question is this: Have there been any evaluations done of cell availability by carrier (in the Bay Area) which I could consult before I select my carrier? Thanks, Wulf ------------------------------ From: telone@shout.net (Aaron Woolfson) Subject: Re: 877 Replication Report Date: 6 Feb 1998 17:13:18 GMT Organization: Shouting Ground Technologies, Inc. Gee ... perhaps all of the exchanges ought to be made free. Then people can reserve all of the potential combinations in *ALL* the exchanged which spell out something. Who cares if you call (800) FLOWERS or (887) FLOWERS or (217) FLOWERS ... they'd be all the same, and then the NPA would become NPAX Nxx and heck, let's just reserve all of those also. Just a thought. I think there are certain telephone carriers which are particularily slimy about shelving (800) numbers, including one which I know the owner of, which has about 2000 numbers on reserve pointing to nothing but dead air --- that's right. How Annoying! Aaron Woolfson ------------------------------ From: ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) Subject: Re: US Warns Junk E-mailers Against Scam Offerings Date: 7 Feb 1998 23:58:40 -0600 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site In article , Tad Cook wrote: > While the e-mail pitches reviewed likely violated the law, the > agencies lacked the resources to pursue every case, an official > explained. Instead, the agencies sought the names and addresses of the > senders and issued warnings. > The agencies would likely commence legal proceedings if they receive > further evidence that a junk e-mailer had ignored the warning, the > official said. > The move followed a similiar warning issued in 1996 to more than 500 > Web site operators promoting pyramid schemes. One wonders how many of the same alleged violators were on the 1996 list as are on the current list. And, if the federal government learned a lesson as to what tactics have been effective in enforcing this law, and which ones aren't. Or, is publicizing "stern warnings" just an attempt at PR by the Postal Inspection Service and the FTC? ------------------------------ From: Christopher W. Boone Subject: Re: Area Code 225 for Baton Rouge LA Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 19:01:07 -0600 Organization: The Walt Disney Company / ABC Radio Networks Engineering From a good friend of mine, here is the info ... > Chris, > Thanks for the note on the area code. The new 225 area covers > 10 parishes > (counties) in and around Baton Rouge. > Permissive date is Monday, August 17, 1998. > Mandatory date is Monday April 5, 1999. > Regards > George Sells W8GQ > WAFB-TV Baton Rouge George is the anchor of their nightly newscasts! ------------------------------ From: Ed M Subject: Blocked 800 Calls From Payphones and Hotels? Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 12:30:25 -0500 Organization: Netcom Recently I've received several complaints from people trying to call our 800 number from payphones and hotels. In one case they were asked to enter a code after dialing the 800 number (we have none) and in another case reorder busy was returned. Does anyone have any clue about what this could be? Is it legal for hotels to block 800 numbers? Does the recent ruling about LD carriers charging the owner of the 800 number for calls from payphones have any impact on this? The carrier is Worldcom and the termination is on a T1. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When trying to answer questions like this it is always important to know as precisely as possible the origin of the attempted calls. It helps to know *who* sent back the re-order, *who* requested the code number, etc. I cannot see any par- ticular incentive for a hotel/motel to block 800 numbers since most will charge at least fifty cents or a dollar for calling them anyway, even without making a commmission on the call itself. There is one motel in the north suburbs of Chicago I know of where the owners have blocked 800 numbers on their PBX from guest room phones, but they have at least some rationale: they got stuck for several thousand dollars in charges by a guest who dialed a sex line and agreed to accept 'collect' charges for a call that went on for two days with several people taking part in the 'call'. I've tried to work with the owner and reason with him over the past couple months on this, and explained other options such as 'billed number screening' which could be used to avoid this in the future. He is presently in litigation with the guest over this and to make matters worse, he is a stubborn old man. He provides pay phones around the building, and in general discourages outgoing calls of any kind through the PBX. I suspect there is a routing/translation problem somewhere which is sending some calls to another number in error such as one of the 800 numbers-in-common MCI has for customers where they are to enter a PIN and be connected. The re-order tone is common when the dip to the database fails for whatever reason. For example, on my own 800 number (yes, I have one, and do you suppose I would *ever* print it in this journal after the hateful tricks which have been suggested to shag away spammers?) I've tested it at 3:00 AM only to get re-order tone on a dozen or more attempts to reach it made in succession. I go to bed, wake up in the morning and try it again, and the call goes through just fine. I found out later a couple of those re-order failures were due to the database being unreachable for some reason and a couple were due to my carrier being offline for some maintain- ence. If you could try to develop a chronology on this it would be helpful. Ask the complainers (that's what telco calls them, so why shouldn't I?) for more specifics. Time of day? Number called from if known? Hotel switchboard? What did you dial to get out of the PBX? Are there other restrictions on outgoing calls in the hotel, such as a security depost being required before the phone in the room is turned on? Did it happen just once or several times? Always from the same phone or different phones? Get all the details you can. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 18:00:00 +0000 From: ronw@capcittel.com (Ron Walter) Subject: 800 Number Billing Scams A customer of ours is a small college that provides telephone service to the dormitory through a PBX. They have been getting hit with bills from third party billings for services that are accessed via 800 numbers. (Integretel is a regularly-appearing billing company). US West tells us that there is not way to stop these third party billing companies from billing their account. I need to know if anyone has any ideas what a place can do to protect themselves from these kind of charges. The best thing that comes to mind is blocking calls to specific numbers -- if that is the case does anyone know of any place that keeps a database of regular offenders? I know that if this is the only answer, one would have to be keep constantly on guard to new numbers that pop up. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The local telco can and will on request place 'billed number screening' on all the lines of the PBX on request. This block will be honored by the major long distance carriers and the Bells. Integratel does not check the negative list maintained by the other carriers but does maintain one of its own. A month or two ago, someone printed here a list of the phone numbers to call at each of the independent billing aggregators like Integratel that one could call to be placed on their negative lists. Tell the telecom admin at the school for now to call the billing number listed on the bill for Integratel with a list of every number on the switch- board and a demand that all be blocked. Integratel will do it for free. Do the same with other carriers listed, and above all, make sure the local telco adds it in the database they share with AT&T/ MCI/Sprint for this purpose. Yes, AT&T isn't above slipping it to you in the same way when they can if you have not negative 'optioned-out' by getting added to the list. Maybe someone with that list which was printed here a while back will mail you a copy. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 14:43:11 -0500 From: James M. Kaplan Subject: Long Distance Cost Structures Are there any sources (free or non-free) of cost structures for L/D carriers that are worth investigating? James M. Kaplan Senior Consultant Telecom & Media Practice Deloitte & Touche Consulting Group voice - (212) 436-6935 pager - (888) 665-7328 fax - (212) 436-5958 email - kaplan37@pobox.com ------------------------------ From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: Re: New MCI FCC Charge Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 17:59:28 -0500 Organization: ICB TOLL FREE NEWS, Daily News Service of the Toll Free Industry Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com The FCC ordered that businesses with more than one phone line are supposed to pay $2.75 per line; residents, should pay 53 cents for one line as well, and $1.50 for each additional line. However, according to an article in the {Washington Post}, MCI officials say they have no way of knowing how many phone lines their customers have. They blame local phone companies for delays in providing that data, and also said MCI needs time to develop the proper billing software. Until that happens, District-based MCI has decided to "estimate," based on the size of each business customer's monthly bills, new fees ranging from 13 percent to 30 percent of monthly charges. So if a company runs up $800 a month in charges from its toll-free 800 number ring to one POTS line, MCI's formula treats the company as if it has multiple phone lines and charges it accordingly. (The article relates the story of one Rick Davis, general manager of a small electronics store in Charleston, S.C., who got a big surprise when he opened the company's January phone bill: His long-distance carrier, MCI Communications Corp., charged the company $104.06 for a new federal "National Access Fee." But for the store's single phone line, Davis, under the FCC's plan, should have been charged just 53 cents, not $104. MCI would not refund his money, and his only option was to change carriers.) MCI's residential customers are paying more than the FCC ordered as well: Instead of being charged 53 cents if they have just one phone line, every MCI customer will pay $1.07, because MCI can't figure out how many phone lines each customer has. "We don't have the data right now to be able to know precisely the difference between a first and second line, or even exactly how many lines the customers have," said Jonathan Sallet, MCI's chief policy counsel. "And so we are doing the best we can to do an estimate, fairly applied across the customer base, of what is necessary to recover the funds we will have to pay." FCC officials, the article says, are upset about being blamed by MCI for the new charges. The agency maintains that the universal service fees technically are charged to local telephone companies, such as Bell Atlantic Corp., which are authorized to seek compensation from long-distance carriers. It's up to MCI and other long-distance companies to decide how to pay, the FCC contends. Warned FCC Commissioner Susan Ness: "Carriers better sharpen their pencils and think twice about what they're putting on customers' bills and attributing to government action." It's unclear whether other long-distance carriers are charging customers the new fees based on customers' revenue. AT&T Corp. officials said their company is not: It is levying the new fees, ranging from 53 cents to $5.50 monthly, according to customers' calling plans, until they can get better data on how many phone lines each customer owns. Judith Oppenheimer, Publisher ICB TOLL FREE NEWS The daily news service of the Toll Free Industry 15-day, no-obligation FREE trial: http://www.icbtollfree.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: First, regards the 'owner of the small electronics store' who got that bill, why is it saying he could not get a refund from MCI? Who in the hell would even have paid it to start with? He should have put an immediate freeze on payment of ANY PORTION of the bill to MCI until they got it straightened out, and let them hound him. Nuts to the business of having to seek a refund. Second, why are these carriers claiming they have no way to tell how many lines each person has? Since they are looking at the customer's bill to see what the total charges are, why not just look and see how many different phone numbers (for that customer) were used to call via their service that month. If the customer's record shows that three lines were used, then charge on the basis of three lines. Am I unclear on the concept here? Third, for the benefit of MCI and the other shysters in the industry, there is a VERY STERN federal law against ever collecting money and blaming it on 'taxes' when in fact the tax does not exist at all or is in some lesser amount than the amount being claimed as part of the collection from customers. That is to say, you come into my place of business and purchase an item marked one dollar. At the register you are charged,let's say, $1.25 and I say to you the difference is due to 'taxes'. The taxes are actually eight percent or eight cents and I pocket the other seventeen cents. The government has a beef with me for doing this. I forget the number of the law in the federal code; maybe a lawyer can look it up. It is a crime to collect money for legitimate, existing taxes and then pocket the money; it is another, equally serious crime to claim taxes are due in some amount when there is no such tax at all. The government does not like it ... of course MCI does a better job of sucking up than the average storefront merchant. Which brings me to point four: if you suggest to your customers or employees that some tax is due as the reason for charging more or paying them less, you'd best be able on demand to show where every nickle thus collected was in fact remitted to the government(s) involved. Any attornies feel like a class action on behalf of telephone subscribers charged under what appears to be very capricious and arbitrary formulas? ------------------------------ From: jnovosel@cc.gatech.edu (Joe Novosel) Subject: Re: Stopping Annoying "Private" Calls Date: 8 Feb 1998 03:17:44 GMT Organization: College of Computing, Georgia Tech Thomas J. Huot (huot@cray.com) wrote: > We have been getting numerous calls which are showing up on our caller > ID as "Private". The person or persons who are making these calls are > hanging up all of the time without leaving a message. I'm not sure if > they aren't scouting us out to find out when we are home. My question is > Is there a box I can attach to our phone line which will identify > these "Private" calls (that shouldn't be difficult since the caller ID > already does that), answers the phone immediately, and responds with a > message informing the caller that our line does not accept unidentified > callers, and if they want to get through, they need to unblock their > number. If there is such a box, I would like to know about it. Has > anyone heard of such a thing? I built a solution using the following: *486 system running Linux (does other things besides this so I didn't have to buy more hardware) *Cheap 14.4 modem that receives Caller ID *Reveal "Voice mail for PC" "Dongle". This takes audio in/out from a sound card and will connect it to the phone line. Reveal has gone out-of-business now so some other solution would be needed. *Some software I wrote. I listen for caller-id and determine if the call is: 1. Out of Area - play appropriate message 2. Private - play appropriate message 3. On my list of blocked numbers - play appropriate message I got the messages from the Bell Labs text to speech synthesizer web page (can't remember the url). You can read my telemarketer blocker project writeup on my web page at: www.prism.gatech.edu/~gt2497b Joe Novosel CS2430-TA jnovosel@cc.gatech.edu This address may not be used for unsolicited email ***** Repeal the 16th amendment!! Support HR2001***** ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 04:32:23 -0500 From: The Old Bear Subject: Re: 617/781 Mandatory, and New Boston Books In TELECOM Digest, vol.18 no.24, Garrett Wollman wrote: > The 617/781 and 508/978 splits officially went mandatory today. By a > curious coincidence, my building's 1998 directories were delivered > today as well. A few comments on both ... You are to be commended. I never thought I would read a serious (and very well done) review of a telephone directory! I recall a number of years ago, some humorist wrote the following review of the Manhattan White Pages: "The author introduces what may be the most extensive cast of characters ever assembled in a single volume, but fails miserably in developing these characters. No sooner does the reader learn that Mr. Alvin A. Aaronson lives at 27750 Park Avenue, then the author abrubtly drops Mr. Aaronson and moves on to another protagonist..." :) Cheers, The Old Bear ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 06:53:03 -0600 From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: FCC Surcharge and Complaints > My first reaction is, I take issue with the comments from MCI if the > part about how the connection charges is true. If I understand > correctly, the long-distance companies no longer have to pay the LEC's > a per-minute charge, instead they pay a charge based on the number of > lines. If MCI is passing on the per-line connection charges to their > customer, but not reducing per-minute rates, then I don't see how MCI > is doing anything other than increasing their revenue. > I would be interested to find out if anyone has had similar experience > of excessive charges, or any further insight on these charges. AT&T is also currently charging a $1.50/line "subscriber line surcharge" (or something to that effect, I don't have my bill in front of me). I don't know if they plan to lower their rates (they did mention that there was some kind of rate change coming but it didn't say what), but I will keep everyone posted as I find out more. Derek J. Balling | J: "You ARE Aware Elvis is dead, right?" dredd@megacity.org | K: "Elvis isn't dead, son he just went http://www.megacity.org/ | home!" - Men In Black ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #29 *****************************