A Beginner's Guide to the Internet/INTERNET.ISO/text/telediag/tc13-085.txt

Text File | 1996-05-06 | 20.1 KB | 465 lines

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 12 Feb 93 02:08:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 85

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (Ken Dykes)
    Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (Dave Niebuhr)
    Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Robert Loeber)
    Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (G. Waigh)
    Re: Running Out of Area Codes (Tony Harminc)
    Re: Running Out of Area Codes (Carl Moore)
    Re: Running Out of Area Codes (John Adams)
    Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? (Dave Niebuhr)
    Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? (Henry Mensch)
    Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (Laurence Chiu)
    AT&T vs. MCI, China, etc. (was AT&T Are You Listening?) (C Pedregal-Martin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1993 19:49:13 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Ken Dykes)
Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State


In Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 76, Message 10 of 16:

> live in southern Ontario CANADA.  My Caller-ID box instead of showing
> out-of-area showed PRIVACY.  The call to me was made (and answered)
> twice in the same night; both times PRIVACY ... some sort of
> call-blocking was enabled by PacBell.

> [Moderator's Note: Are you certain this was PacBell's doing, or was it
> your caller who entered the privacy mode?  PAT]

I asked him during the phone conversation. he did not do it himself.
and he seemed to be perplexed by my amusement :-)

Also, *can* California residents enter the blocking code even though
Caller-ID as a service doesnt exist? Seems unlikely.

The more I think about this, the more sneaky PacBell is being. Instead
of being a "kind service" to the privacy zealots, they are really
trying to build up demand for the service to be allowed under
favourable terms.

ie: If enough out-of-state relatives and friends refuse to pick up the
phone because of *PRIVACY* (I answer out-of-area, or -not available-
in this case I answered because of screening via answering machine)
eventually people will start COMPLAINING they cannot successfully call
anyone anymore. Things that make you go Hummmmmmmmmmm.


Ken Dykes, Thinkage Ltd., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada    [43.47N 80.52W]
    [e-mail]   [e-mail]   thinkage!kgdykes
    [e-mail]             [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Yes, people in California -- at least in the Bay
Area and San Jose -- *can* enter the privacy *67 code. Tests have been
done to demonstrate this. JH has done it, and gets the three spurts of
tone in response, for whatever good it does. And get this: I've gotten
calls from the Bay Area which show up on my display as 'outside' one
time, and 'private' the next ... from the same caller! PacBell is
doing something with the ID, that's for sure.  *What* they are doing
is not clear yet.  The deployment of SS-7 seems to be moving rapidly
now. I am seeing the number from more and more interstate places than
ever before. I estimate within three or four months it will be very
commonplace on an interstate/interlata basis, at least in major cities
around the USA.

What I think is fascinating is how I can use Call Screening across
LATA boundaries now. When I try to screen someone who is not in this
LATA, there will be a delay while the CO actually makes contact with
the distant office to ask 'are you capable of doing this, and if so,
is there such a number as xxx-yyyy?' Instead of the immediate response
I get to a screening request locally, it may take fifteen seconds or
so for the Rogers Park CO to get back to me. Sometimes the answer will
be the number has been added to my directory of screened calls; other
times the answer will be 'sorry, cannot add this number' and still
other times the reply will be 'sorry, cannot add this number *right
now* -- try again in a few minutes' !! I assume this last reply means
the attempt to contact the distant CO timed out with no response to
the query from my CO.  PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Feb 93 09:18:36 EST
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr)
Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State


In TELECOM Digest V13 #80 [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
said:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken
> Dykes) writes:

>> Recently I received a call from the Glendale area of Los Angeles.  I
>> live in southern Ontario CANADA.  My Caller-ID box instead of showing
>> out-of-area showed PRIVACY.  The call to me was made (and answered)
>> twice in the same night; both times PRIVACY ... some sort of
>> call-blocking was enabled by PacBell.

>> PacBell is being far too kind to the zealots :-)

> It might be the PSC's doing.  The NY PSC, for example, has mandated
> that New York Tel must not permit delivery of CPN for customers in
> Manhattan until they have completed an education campaign (which I
> expect means bill inserts) on how to restrict delivery on a per-call
> basis.

I don't understand why Manhattan would be singled out for non-Caller
ID when the rest of NYC (area code 718 has it; 917 doesn't count since
it's for pagers/cell phones/special services, etc.)

In fact, the rest of the NY LATA (area codes 516, 718, 914) already
have full CLASS service (I don't know about the tiny bit of area code
203 that is in the NY LATA.

Public education started about three months before the introduction of
each part of CLASS and is continuing today.

There has to be another reason for Manhattan not having CLASS service.


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: [e-mail] / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Robert Paul Loeber)
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones
Date: 11 Feb 1993 19:59:21 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico


> 3. As defined in 47 CFR part 15 scanning receivers, or "scanners,"
> are radio receivers that automatically switch between four or more
> frequencies anywhere within the 30-960 Mhz band....

I know this may sound like a dumb question ... but what is the FCCs
definition of a "radio receiver"?  If it is "something which is
intented to receive radio frequencies"... then transceivers would fall
into that definition.  If that's the case ... this legistation would
be forced to deny authorization to the manufacturers of cellular
phones.  If this isn't the case, people (in the future) who would want
to take part in monitoring cellular conversations would be best off to
get a cellular phone (instead of a scanner) [assuming they could get
the phone to act as a receiver -- but of course, no one would do that
since monitoring cell-fone conversations is against the law].

               "Enquiring minds want to know...."


Bob Loeber    [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Geoffrey P Waigh)
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 17:48:12 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> TELECOM Moderator <telecom@
eecs.nwu.edu> writes:

[Text of proposed amendments]

Whenever I have heard of this plan, I have wondered how Americans will
continue to design radio equipment.  Is there some clause that I
missed that will allow RF engineers to continue purchasing spectrum
analyzers, mixers and other simple to connect gadgets for the purpose
of testing their equipment?  If so, what is going to stop these
devices from being used to scan cellular communications?  It would be
amusing if spectrum analyzers had to be kept under lock-and-key to
prevent use by anyone other than a "certified, responsible entity."


Geoffrey Waigh    [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Feb 93 21:03:27 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes


Robert L. McMillin posts from the {Los Angeles Times}:

> The day of reckoning is fast approaching.  The supply of three-digit
> North American telephone area codes -- all of which have "0" or "1" as

> the middle number -- will be exhausted within two years unless
> augmented by new kinds of three-digit area codes, phone company
> officials and telecommunications experts say.

> A growing number of firms want the Federal Communications Commission to
> mediate the dispute -- a request that could delay Bellcore's planned
> expansion of area codes as regulators weigh the issue.

It's not at all clear how the FCC, a US government agency, could have
any jurisdiction over the NANP, which is an international arrangement.
Telcos in Canada, Bermuda, and the Caribbean do not answer to the FCC.

> Many industry experts say that hundreds of millions of dollars in new
> equipment will be needed to make the transition from the current
> numbering system, first established in 1947, to a new one.

> Businesses -- many of which have old telephone switchboards that only
> recognize current long distance codes -- may be especially hard hit,
> while consumers will likely have a much harder time finding phone
> numbers through long-distance directory assistance because of the
> proliferation of area codes.

> Callers will have to closely pinpoint neighborhoods in making
> directory assistance requests because of the area-code proliferation.
> That's already a problem in Southern California, which now has seven
> area codes and is likely to get many more.

This sounds like nonsense.  Telcos do not divide DA bureaus up
strictly by area code in most cases.  If a city has several area
codes, a call to any one should be enough to find out a number in that
city.  And locally, 411 should do.

> Equipment makers have told Merrill Lynch that it will have to wait
> months -- and spend thousands of additional dollars -- to acquire a new
> private branch exchange (PBX) system that will recognize the new area
> codes, Liuzzo said.  (PBX equipment allows communications both within a
> company and with the outside world.)

I have absolutely no sympathy!  The transition to interchangeable
codes has been known and planned for since the early 1970s.  Where
have these vendors been for the last twenty years ?


Tony Harminc

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Feb 93 12:50:58 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes


The article, if anything, tends to sensationalize.  After what
happened with divestiture (COCOTs etc.), is there some
make-a-fast-buck scenario in going up against what we heard from
Bellcore?  It has been apparent here for a long time that the easiest
way to relieve the area code shortage is to generalize area codes from
N0X/N1X to NXX, and even that method will require reprogramming a lot
of equipment (including overseas).  The archive file "history.of.area.
splits" discusses the dialing changes that were made for N0X/N1X
prefixes and which would also accommodate the NXX area codes.

Of course, when a code generalizes, be mindful of the poor souls who
get the first of the previously-forbidden forms.  This happened with
the N0X/N1X prefixes in area 213 (for example, explaining your phone
number to an operator on the U.S. East Coast), and the lengthy
discussions here in telecom will help to mitigate such problem for the
people who get the first NNX area code.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (adams,john)
Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 93 13:28:21 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert
L. McMillin) quotes the {Los Angeles Times}:

> With so much at stake, upstart communication service companies are
> already facing off against Bellcore, an arm of the seven regional
> phone companies that currently administers long distance area codes.

SURPRISE!  (At least I was!)  In yesterday's "New Yawk Times" appeared
an article stating that SPRINT is now an *owner* (along with the seven
RECs) of BELLCORE.  I'm personally convinced that this will have
little to do with me, although I can see a couple of legions of
attorneys lining up on either side of this issue.

God, I love this industry!


Jack (John) Adams        Bellcore NVC 2Z-220
[phone] {Voice}        [phone] {Facsimile}
[e-mail]    [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Feb 93 09:12:27 EST
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr)
Subject: Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted?


In TELECOM Digest V13 #81 [e-mail] (John R. Levine)
writes:

> Here in Massachusetts it is indeed the case that second and subsequent
> lines at a single location can be unlisted at no charge.  For some
> reason New England Tel sometimes insists otherwise.  When I added
> RingMate (distinctive ringing) to my second line, NET wanted to charge
> to unlist each of the numbers on the second line, and I had to go to
> the state DPU to get NET to behave.

> If as seems to be the case there's a pattern here, I should get the
> state to tell NET to audit the records to see how many subscribers are
> paying an unwarranted charge to unlist their second lines.

In NYTel land, a second line is provided with no listing whatsoever.
I could have either a *true* listed name/number, *fake* name/true
number, or be totally unlisted.  It wouldn't make one difference.  And
in addition to that there is no unlisted charge for the second line
regardless of the listing/non-listing of the first number.


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: [e-mail] / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093


[Moderator's Note: This is ditto for Illinois Bell. As long as you
have *something* -- at least one line -- listed, there is no non-pub
charge regardless of how other lines are handled. Likewise, as long as
you pay for *one* non-pub arrangement, you can have all your lines
non-pub for all they care at no extra charge.  PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Henry Mensch)
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 93 16:35:14 -0800
Subject: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted?
Reply-To: [e-mail]


On Wed, 10 Feb 93 03:08:59 -0500 [e-mail] (Dan
Lanciani) wrote:

> I recently ordered a second line in my name and at the same
> address as my existing line.  For some reason I thought one could get
> non-published or unlisted (I forget) status at no extra charge for
> each line beyond the first.  Did I imagine this?

I don't think so; when I lived in NET-land (I left two years ago), I
had a second line which was unlisted this way at no extra charge.


# henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc.  / <[e-mail]>

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening?
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 05:41:54 GMT


[Some comments on AT&T and MCI international calling plans deleted here
for brevity's sake.]

> [Moderator's Note: Are you sure this is AT&T's fault or that of the
> local telco which does AT&T's billing?  For some six or eight months
> after AT&T started Reach Out World with the additional ten percent
> discount on domestic calls granted in that program, IBT customers
> could not have it since IBT was unable to get the billing correct.
> What had to happen was each month I was told by AT&T that they would
> get a copy of my bill, examine it and manually correct it, issuing
> credits as required. You might want to specifically inquire if AT&T is
> do but your local telco (if that is who bills your AT&T calls) is not
> up to speed on it, and if so, can you have it with AT&T issuing the
> required credits manually.  They might say yes!   PAT]

Actually I had problems setting up ROW. When I called AT&T they
contacted PacBell who is my local telco. They advised AT&T that my
number was invalid! Granted it was a new prefix 510-988-xxxx but it
was working and therefore perfectly valid. Anyway I had to stay on the
line with a three-way between AT&T, PacBell and me for over 20 minutes
before the whole mess was straightened out.

Then I got my first bill and sure enough I was not getting my ROW
discounts. I called AT&T who promised to give me a credit on my next

bill.  They did and all my ROW discounts showed up as well as the 5%
discount for calls within CA since I also joined up with their Anytime
Saver plan (is that what it's called?).  I have been impressed with
AT&T customer service and the quality of their lines seem to be good.
So I am loathe to switch.

BTW I called MCI based on a message from someone else who suggested I
use AT&T as my 1+ carrier but setup an account with MCI and use their
International Plans. After some prodding I was told I could enroll
with MCI's plans via 10xxx but I guess I would have to be billed
separately for that. The respondent suggested that this kind of
billing was iffy at best.  I still don't know what to do!


Laurence Chiu

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Cris Pedregal-Martin)
Subject: AT&T vs. MCI, China, etc (was AT&T Are You Listening?)
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 93 16:18:27 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Greetings. Some remarks on AT&T and MCI's calling plans ...

Background:

Laurence Chiu can't get discounts from AT&T to both China and other
foreign countries: China is not in "Reach Out World", and "Special
Country" is incompatible with ROW.  He is thinking about switching
carriers (to MCI). Our esteemed Moderator suggests this may be a
problem with the billing at the local telco.

My current housemates have gone through this (with China).  They
switched to MCI to be able to use "Friends & Family" and get 20% off.
They are back with AT&T: too many lost connections, and too much time
waiting for customer service to answer the phone. (Just a data point,
no flames please).

I had a similar situation too (calling Europe and Canada with ROW, but
wanting to call Argentina and Paraguay, which are not in ROW).  You
may want to try what I did.  I opened an account with MCI, while
keeping AT&T as my default IXC (i.e., my "dial-1" company).  I put the
Paraguay number and the Argentina number as my two foreign F&Fs. And I
kept ROW with AT&T.  When calling Paraguay and Argentina I had to
prefix the call with 10-222, of course.

Front line "reps" at MCI will try to get you to switch; they may even
tell you you can't use F&F if you are not a dial-1 customer (as
discussed in c.d.t. in the past, this is *not* true); you may need to
go up one level or two of supervisors.  The other thing is that their
billing software (at least in the Northeast they bill directly unless
you don't have an account with them) is obviously not prepared for
this, so it took me four months to get this working. They would close
my account "automatically" and I'd get billed by my Baby-Bell (with no
discounts); I would call them and they would refund the money and
start billing me themselves again. After the second month, a very nice
supervisor gave me her 800 number and I'd call her and get it all
straightened out (the bills did say I was dial-1 so it was a kludge).

Of course, it all depends on the amounts involved. And, given the
experience of my friends, you may want to do things the other way
around: drop ROW, put China as SC with AT&T, and buy MCI's world-plan
to call NZ and AU; you may even save more (by putting two numbers on
F&F) as I am fairly sure that MCI's world plan doesn't include China.
As I said before, this is independent of who you want to keep as your
dial-1 company (and whose customer service you expect to have to deal
with).

Usual disclaimer: no relation with the companies involved except as a
customer.


Regards,

Cristobal Pedregal Martin      [e-mail]
Computer Science Department    UMass / Amherst, MA 01003

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #85
*****************************