TELECOM Digest Sun, 21 Feb 93 21:37:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 122 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson CRTC News Release: Bell, B.C. Tel New Charges (Adele Ponty) Quebec Yellow Pages Controversy (Nigel Allen) Call for Articles: ConneXions (Ole J. Jacobsen) International Calling Services (Jim Sturtevant) More About General Turmoil (Brian D. McMahon) Any Way to Use Cellular Phone on Normal Phone Lines? (David C. Kovar) Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (Robert L. McMillin) Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (Tim Gorman) Re: Long Subscriber Loop Problems (Pat Turner) Re: Long Subscriber Loop Problems (Bruce Sullivan) Re: Let's Do a Figure-8 (Steve Forrette) Re: Procedure to Use 800-321-0ATT (Laird Broadfield) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adele Ponty Subject: CRTC News Release: Bell, B.C. Tel New Charges Organization: UTCC Public Access Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 15:53:21 -0500 CRTC news release January 29, 1993 BELL, B.C. TEL, APPLY TO INTRODUCE NEW DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE CHARGES OTTAWA/HULL - The CRTC today announced that it has received applications from both the British Columbia Telephone Company (B.C. Tel) and Bell Canada (Bell) to revise their customer charges for directory assistance (Telecom Public Notice CRTC 93-13 and 93-14). Bell and B.C. Tel both propose to apply a directory assistance charge for each requested telephone number, whether it be for a number in Canada or the United States. Specifically, the two companies are proposing to introduce a $0.50 local directory assistance (LDA) charge for requests for local numbers not listed in the current editions of their telephone directories; introduce a long distance directory assistance (LDDA) charge of $0.50 for Canadian telephone numbers outside the subscriber's free calling area, and; reduce the LDDA charge for requests for telephone numbers in the United States from $0.80 to $0.50. Bell also proposes to reduce its LDA charge for listed numbers from $0.60 to $0.50. The proposed changes would also affect the exemption currently available to persons with disabilities and, in the case of Bell, those persons 65 years of age and over. Currently, Bell provides unlimited local directory assistance free of charge to seniors and persons with disabilities. There is also no charge for persons with disabilities for lond distance directory assistance for numbers within Canada. For numbers within the United States, the general limit of 50 free requests per month is applied. Under Bell's proposal, there would not be unlimited free directory assistance but rather a combined maximum of 25 free local and long distancE directory assistance requests per month per residence customer account. B.C. Tel currently allows persons with disabilities unlimited local directory assistance and unlimited long distance directory assistance for numbers within Canada or to the United States. B.C. Tel now proposes to only exempt persons with disabilities from paying local directory assistance charges if he number requested is listed in the company's telephone directory. There would no longer be any free long distance directory assistance. The applications made by Bell and B.C. Tel are available for examination at any of their respective business offices, or at the offices of the CRTC. The Commission invites anyone affected by the proposed changes to submit their comments in writing, by March 1, 1993. Note: Both the public notice and this news release are available in Braille and on audio cassette. Contact: Bill Allen, Director CRTC, Public Affairs, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N2 (819) 997-0313 - TDD (819) 994-0423 - Fax (819) 994-0218 or one of our regional offices listed below: Halifax,Nova Scotia - (902) 426-7997 - TDD (902) 426 6997 Montreal, Quebec - (514) 283-6607 - TDD (514) 283-831 Winnipeg, Manitoba - (204) 983-6306 - TDD (204) 983-8274 Vancouver, British Columbia - (604) 666-2111 - TDD (604) 666-0778 or the Department of Communications Regional Office: Toronto, Ontario - (416) 973-8215 Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Notice Ottawa, 29 January 1993 Telecom Public Notice CRTC 93-14 BELL CANADA - REVISIONS TO DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE CHARGES Reference: Tariff Notice 4505 The Commission has received an application from Bell Canada (Bell), dated 11 September 1992, for approval of tariff revisions related to directory assistance charges. In its application, Bell proposes to apply a common directory assistance charge of $0.50 per requested telephone number for both local directory assistance (LDA) and long distance directory assistance (LDDA). Specifically, the company proposes to: (1) reduce the current LDA charge from $0.60 to $0.50; (2) eliminate the current free allowance of 50 LDDA calls to the United States per access per month; $0.50; (3) reduce the Canada-U.S. LDDA charge from $0.80 to $0.50; (4) introduce a Canada/Canada LDDA charge of $0.50; (5) introduce a charge of $0.50 for requests for (a) out-of-book numbers (i.e., numbers that are within the same local calling area, but listed in another directory), (b) numbers that are new, changed or not listed, (c) foreign listings, and (d) 800 Service numbers via LDA, and (6) introduce a charge for LDA/LDDA requests from hotel PBX Service, and for requests for Bell numbers and for special instruction-type listings (for example, "if busy call" or "after hours call"). The company proposes to establish a free monthly allowance of 25 LDA/LDDA requests per residence account for (1) persons certified as being 65 years of age or over, and (2) persons who are certified as physically or mentally disabled, functionally illiterate or who inform the company of a temporary handicap or disability preventing them from using the directory. Bell also proposes changes to the exemptions and exceptions to the application of LDA and LDDA charges. In support of its application, Bell has submitted information for which it has claimed confidentiality. An abridged version of this information has been provided for the public record. The Commission addressed interrogatories to Bell with respect to its application. The company responded to these interrogatories on 21 January 1993. The application may be examined at any of Bell's business offices or at the offices of the CRTC, Room 201, Central Building, Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere, 1 Promenade du Portage, Hull, Quebec, or Suite 602, Complex Guy-Favreau, East Tower, 200 Rene-Levesque Blvd. West. Montreal, Quebec. A copy of Bell's application and of its responses to the Commission's interrogatories may be obtained by any person upon request directed to the company at the address shown below. If you wish to comment on the application, please write to Mr. A. J. Darling, Secretary General, CRTC, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N2, by 1 March 1993 (fax: (819) 953-0795). A copy of your letter should be sent to Mr. B. A> Courtois, Vice President, Law and Regulatory Affairs, Bell Canada, 105 Hotel-de-Ville Street, 6th Floor, Hull, Quebec, J8X 4H7 (fax: (819) 778-3437). ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 10:28:00 -0500 From: ndallen@r-node.pci.on.ca (Nigel Allen) Subject: Quebec Yellow Pages Controversy Organization: R-node Public Access Unix - 1 416 249 5366 Bell Canada's Yellow Pages subsidiary, Tele-Direct (Publications) Inc., makes Quebec companies that want to advertise in the English- language section of the Yellow Pages buy an advertisement of the same size in the French-language section as well, according to {Marketing} magazine (February 15, 1993, p. 3). French-language advertisers don't have to buy English-language advertising, though. This particularly affects small companies in Montreal and Hull that primarily serve the English-speaking community. The policy is apparently the result of a private agreement between Tele-Direct and a Quebec government agency, the Office de la Langue Francaise. As well, Bell Canada only puts the French-language Yellow Pages in Montreal phone booths, the article reports. (That is, the booth would have the white pages and the French-language Yellow Pages, but not the English-language Yellow Pages. In practice, many Bell phone booths don't have any directories at all.) I have capitalized Yellow Pages, as it is a registered trade mark in Canada. In the U.S., it is a generic term. (In the same way, Aspirin is a registered trade mark in Canada, but not in the U.S.) Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada ndallen@r-node.pci.on.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 9:03:17 PST From: Ole J. Jacobsen Subject: Call for Articles: ConneXions Call for Articles ConneXions -- The Interoperability Report is a monthly technical journal which covers all aspects for computer networking and distributed computing. ConneXions seeks articles ranging from technology tutorials and user case studies, to letters, opinions and book reviews. For author guidelines, send a message to ole@interop.com. Authors receive a complimentary lifetime sub- scription. *** PLEASE: Do not include my message in your reply. If you must include it, please do so AFTER your reply rather than before it. Thank you very much.*** Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report Interop Company, 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100, Mountain View, CA 94040, Phone: (415) 962-2515 FAX: (415) 949-1779 Email: ole@csli.stanford.edu ------------------------------ Reply-To: jimst@cpcjes.win.net (Jim Sturtevant) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 13:22:43 Subject: International Calling Services From: jimst@cpcjes.win.net (Jim Sturtevant) Pat, I've been monitoring the TELCOM group for quite awhile and enjoy it a great deal. I want to ask if you are familiar with an consultants who are knowledgable on various techniques for providing international callers with inexpensive access to US long distance. For example there are services where you call once from Euorpe, then a return call is placed connecting the caller with their desired party at US intl rates rather than expensive European PTT rates. Also, do you know of a resource (online or printed) to get international rate tables for calls originating outside the US? Thanks for your help, any direction would be helpful. Jim Sturtevant Internet:jimst@cpcjes.win.net The Complete PC CIS UserID: 71333,612 1983 Concourse Dr. San Jose, CA Phone:408.434.0145 Fax:408.434.1048 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 16:51:13 cdt From: McMahon,Brian D Subject: More About General Turmoil I heard yet another interpretation of what the letters GTE stand for from a long-time employee ... Going to Texas Eventually. He then went on to say that he'd jokingly told a switchman that the local CO was moving down south, too. The instantaneous reply: "That already happened. What do you think all those dishes up on the roof are for?" Apparently GenTel is the butt of as many jokes inside the organization as it is on the outside. Gee ... Brian McMahon (BDM13) ------------------------------ From: kovar@world.std.com (David C Kovar) Subject: Any Way to Use Cellular Phone on Normal Phone Lines? Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 18:20:59 GMT I have a Uniden transportable phone that I use occassionally. I was wondering if there was any way of adapting it so I could use it as a normal phone, ie, connected to a house phone jack? I prefer it's handset to the other ones I have and I also would like to have one set of stored numbers rather than two or more. Thanks, in advance. David ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 06:34:17 -0800 From: rlm@indigo2.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening? Jack Decker writes about the Seven Deadly Sins of Telecom. I would propose an eighth: the attitude, common among both MCI and Sprint, and seen elsewhere, that the customer can always prepend 10288 to his calls and get through. It is an excuse for shoddy service, plain and simple. How long was South Carolina out of service before Sprint finally came back on line? ------------------------------ Date: 21 Feb 93 13:46:12 EST From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening? In TELECOM Digest V13 #113 jack_decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker) writes: > Tell me why, for example, an AT&T operator can hold my line open > until she releases the call, while OCC operators cannot? Have these > superior connections been made available to other carriers? I think > not. John Higdon replies: > Why would they want them? What you describe is the old TSPS (left over > from pre-divestiture). The facilities available now are obviously more > advanced. The AT&T operator can hold your line open for exactly the same reason AT&T can provide true coin service -- they are the only carrier willing to invest in the network capability for doing so. This capability has been available for the carriers to order in SWBT since 1989. Thats four years. It would appear to me that the other carriers have no excuses, they just aren't interested in providing the same fully capable service as AT&T does. Economics, I suppose. Tim Gorman - SWBT *opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence* ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 14:30 EST From: rsiatl!turner@rsiatl.UUCP Reply-To: turner@dixie.com Subject: Re: Long Subscriber Loop Problems John Braden writes: > 1. What is a "bridge lifter" (or bridge clips)? To the best of my knowledge: Bridge clips: nickel plated bronze clips used to jumper adjcent terminals on a punchdown (esp 66) block. Bridge lifters: Inductors used on OPX lines. Without loop current, they presented a high impedence to voice frequency. When the line went off hook, the loop current saturated the core of the inductor, lowering the impedence. This isolated the on hook side of the OPX from the in use off hook side. > 3. Is there a way I could improve the signal on my side of the network > interface? There are a number of cards built by Tellabs/Wescom/XEL for this. I can't recommend a specific one because I don't know how they handle ringing. I would call your local Graybar/Anixter/North/Alltel office. Cost will be around $150 for the card and $50 for mounting. > 4. Is there anything I can do to get acceptable signal levels included > in the published tariff for Massachusetts? Not really, they would be unlikely to file a second tariff unless the PUC forces them to. > 6. Should I just give up and be glad I can sometimes connect at V.32 > speeds? Absolutely not, V.32/32 bis modems were designed to function over the public switched telephone network (PSTN). You can't expect the same preformance as someone with a Slick in his/her backyard, but you should be able to connect regardless of tariffs. I would call in another ticket, without mentioning modems. Tell them the problem is "long levels". If they can't help you I would give your PUC a call. > As a result of the attenuation distortion present on my lines, Just for reference, attenuation distortion refers to attenuation vs. freq, usually referenced to 1004 Hz. This is a different problem, but quite likely also happening on you line as well. For POTS lines this is measured with a three tone slope (404, 1004, 2804). Pat Turner KB4GRZ turner@dixie.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 20:15 GMT From: Bruce Sullivan Subject: Re: Long Subscriber Loop Problems > Are there ANY modems which do well with -35dBm signal levels? I doubt it. I don't do much work in the dial-up world, but for a leased circuit, -35db is pretty darned cold. My modems will typically alert me if the RSL goes outside of about -9 to -20db or so, even though we can still pass data beyond that. -35db would definitely get the telco a call from me. When we were ordering a lot analog lines (pretty much DDS only these days..) we paid extra at provisioning time for 'conditioning.' I don't know if this is an option with switched services, since they can't control where you go once you get past your serving CO. Still, *that's* where you problem appears to be, so if they can condition it that far, it might be of some help. There are no doubt others on CDT with far greater knowledge of that than myself. > Is there a way I could improve the signal on my side of the network > interface? Unless the problem exists on your premises, again I doubt it. Even if the problem is there, you'll be taking shots in the dark unless you have the equipment to measure it at various points. Bruce Sullivan (4544760@mcimail.com OR 72747.2737@compuserve.com) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 02:32:55 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Let's Do a Figure-8 Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article jimmy@denwa.info.com (Jim Gottlieb) writes: > goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes: >> Seriously, what other dialing plan would you propose instead? > I, for one, would seriously suggest a change to eight-digit numbers. Wasn't the original reason for thinking of alternatives to the current proposal that some vendors thought it would be too big of a change to their equipment in order to support NXX area codes? Can you imagine how many things in the US would break if the conversion were made to eight digit local numbers (or four digit area codes)? I can't imagine how long it would take the 500+ local carriers, and about as many long distance carriers, to convert. (LA Cellular still does not have the 213/310 split working correctly for roamers in all cases :-() And this does not begin to include all of the private-sector automation that deals with phone numbers. Since the current plan will run out of area codes in less than two years, I don't think this is nearly enough time to make any large-scale changes to the NANP. The FCC has set a 1997 deadline before publicly-accesible PBX's and COCOTs must be replaced to support 10XXX dialing. I would think that at least a similar five-year warning would have to be given to everyone involved before such a change could reasonably be implemented. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: lairdb@crash.cts.com Subject: Re: Procedure to Use 800-321-0ATT Date: 21 Feb 93 10:13:22 GMT Pat writes: > [Moderator's Note: After dialing 800-321-0288, you hear the AT&T > tones, and the robot operator announces, "AT&T ... please enter the > number you are calling, or zero for an operator." After entering the > number you are asked to enter your card number. It is basically the > same as any other credit card call. Persons who have experiences with > this are requested to write. PAT] Slightly amusing story: the "please enter the number you are calling" message confused the bejeezus out of an operator at a hospital I was working at this week; from the phone I was borrowing, any off-premise calls had to be made through the operator, including 800 calls (don't ask me, I don't understand why either.) So, after a number of calls to the operator to get me our corporate voicemail, it happened I needed to make a personal call. So, I called the operator, asked for 800 321 0288, and then we got "please enter the number you are calling". The operator (still on the line) says, in one of the most bewildered voices I've ever heard, "Didn't we just do that?" Laird P. Broadfield lairdb@crash.cts.com ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #122 ******************************