A Beginner's Guide to the Internet/INTERNET.ISO/text/telediag/tc13-097.txt

Text File | 1993-02-16 | 20.0 KB | 473 lines

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 15 Feb 93 01:16:45 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 97

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Touch Tone is no Extra Charge ... Maybe (Paul Robinson)
    Phoenix, AZ Has Caller ID (Kevin W. Reed)
    What Would Be Required to Compile "Secret #" FAQ? (Chris Taylor)
    Re: 1-800-CALL-ATT 'ext. 21' to be Discontinued (Paul Robinson)
    Re: 900 Numbers Tarnished Beyond Repair? (Richard B. Dervan)
    Re: Local Cellular Channel Distribution (Paul Robinson)
    Re: The Definitive Word on TTL Fields (Christopher Davis)
    Re: PacBell IntraLATA Rate Ripoffs (Glenn McComb)
    Re: Standard Dialing Plan (Mark Brader)
    Re: Running Out of Area Codes (Bob Denny)
    Graybar Hotel, Sorry (Paul Robinson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 23:16:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Touch Tone is no Extra Charge ... Maybe


I have two phone lines in my house.  Because someone in the house
wants one of them for their answering machine, I decided to have two
more phone lines installed.  Here's the details from C&P Telephone of
Maryland:

I live in a Maryland suburb of Washington, DC.  The installation is
$65 for the first line and $48 for each additional line, when these
are added to an existing bill.  The rates are slightly higher if the
new lines were being separately added, and if someone wants to split
off some of the phone numbers and take them to another area, then
putting them on the same bill will end up costing both parties all of
the savings by putting them on the original bill.  Also, since the
first line is listed, the other lines are issued unlisted (my computer
line has never been listed even though the main number is).  The clerk
didn't ask me, and since I don't really care, I didn't ask for listing.

When I moved in I saved the $65 because two lines were already installed.
(I wouldn't even *think* of sharing the line my computer uses).

Unlimited residential service is quoted as $20 a month.  I note that
because I already have unlimited local service, the new lines must
also be installed that way; the sales clerk told me that this was the
case.  Her exact words were that it was "a violation of tariff
schedules to install measured and unmeasured service at the same
house."  Also this clerk was honest: the base rate for unlimited
service is $16.50 plus a $3.50 'subscriber line charge' She plainly
stated the rate for phone service was 'twenty dollars per line'.

She also stated that of the measured plans, she herself thought the
stupidest one was the one that sets local calls instead of 10c each
untimed, to be 3.3c each plus 1 1/2c per minute.  They do give one
advantage: if I was taking the 65 calls per month plan ($8.50 plus the
usual $3.50 subscriber charge and taxes) if the lines are billed on
one bill the metering is combined, which meant with four measured
lines the subscriber can use a total of 260 calls in total over all
the lines, meaning if you used 100 calls one one line and 100 on
another, you would not go over the limit.  Note this 'spreading' of
call counts does not apply to directory assistance calls.  Residential
lines get six free calls per month (down from 12) and the calls are
assigned to each line; use eight on one line and none on another and
you owe them for two DA calls at 25c each.

Of the *145* 'long distance carriers' who provide service in this
area, you can sign up for any one of *53* of them that want
subscruibers, and you can select #54, 'none' as the default carrier.
They allow you one month from start of service to choose a carrier
without charge.  If you don't choose, you get left 'undecided' which
means 'AT&T'.  What she means by 'carriers' may mean companies taking
Feature Group B or F.G. D (10XXX access or 950 codes.)  In that case,
one of the 'telephone companies' in the area is the Maryland
Department of Motor Vehicles at 950-1MVA (this gets them the
equivalent of a local toll-free number), and 'Fairfax Cable' (Fairfax
VA) which operates a code at 10-xxx-00 for people to call in to order
pay per view movies.

The installation charge noted above is to put a DEMARC box on the
ground or some easily accessible place as close to the telco 'point of
presence' (or 'POP' -- usually a waist-high post but in our
neighborhood is the telephone pole across the street).  In my house
the lines run from that POP to the second floor, to a tension
adjustment clip, then run down the side of the house around to a
drilled hole in the basement cinder block.  There is an old-fashioned
weather resistant covered outdoor telephone jack using a four-plug
socket on the back of the house.  By my express action with a
screwdriver on the network block, the wire to that jack sits
unconnected.  Thus my lines are protected against any local fraud
short of someone with wire cutters.

If I want the demarc box anyplace else, or if I want additional jacks
installed, I have to pay Time and Materials at $16/15 minutes, unless
the place where the demarc is moved to is shorter than where they
would put it and is accessible. They will bill the installation charge
in one, two, three or four month installments.  I asked for three
months.  If I can, I will probably have the demarc box installed
inside in my upstairs bedroom along with the jacks.  While the demarc
box has a 'dual access' slot, one side with a lock secured by the
telephone company, and the other side which can be locked by the
customer, I've seen demarc boxes and they are usually cheap plastic
and probably easily broken.  It might be cheaper my way; he has to run
the line past my room to get down to ground level.

While I can do the jack wiring, I don't really have the patience nor
the 'touch' to do nice, neat wiring like the stuff that's already
here.  Since this is a rented house, I'll let the phone company guy do
the stapling.  (Oh gee, what's a non-sexist term for the phone
installer?  And what does that do to Jimmy Webb's 'Wichita Lineman'
song made famous by Glen Campbell)?

I suspect phone service is heavily used here: my first two lines had a
number in which the third digit of the exchange was a 5.  The two new
lines which they gave me the numbers (they won't be installed until
2/16) start with the same two digits (indicating the area I'm in) but
the third digit for them is a 7.  I could have, for an additional
charge, been allowed to ask for a specific four digit number if it was
available in one of the prefixes serving this area.

I am fortunate that we still have telephone poles.  If they were using
buried cable (as most of Montgomery County, MD has) the rate to
install more buried wire is 65c PER FOOT after the first 175 feet from
the POP.

Oh yes, about the 'no surcharge for touch tone'.  When I originally
moved in here two years ago, you had to ask to not have touch tone or
it cost $30 to order it removed (sneaky, considering touchtone was
$1.25 a month).  Even sneakier: C&P Telephone has tariffed to
eliminate the $1.25 a month surcharge for touch tone, by adding the
surcharge to the base rate, then reduced the new 'base' charge by 33c.
Nice way to 'decrease' the charge for the service.  So it means that
Touch-Tone is now standard with all lines and is not 'surcharged'.  Or
so they claim, when a $1.25 optional charge is 'removed' by raising
the rates to that less 33c.


Paul Robinson - [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin W. Reed)
Subject: Phoenix, AZ Has Caller ID
Organization: Posted via TeleSys Development Systems (Mesa, AZ U.S.A.)
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 02:08:35 GMT


Caller ID just got turned on in Phoenix, AZ after a brief delay from
the Corporations Commission.

The delay was due to US West not properly notifying all its customers
of the free ability to signup for line blocking.  Also, apparently,
many of the police departments in the area had not received adequate
notice that the lines they use in undercover work had not been blocked
properly.

On the radio the other day, US West was reported to have signed up
close to 5,000 subsribers to the Caller ID feature.  It then went on
to say that US West had also accepted more than 30,000 requests for
full line blocking.


TELESYS DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS
Kevin W. Reed        Public *NIX Site and Newsfeed Source
[e-mail]     UUCP: ...!ncar!noao!enuucp!telesys!kreed
SCO Xenix/Unix Support    Data/UUCP/BBS [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 01:51:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Chris Taylor <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Would Be Required to Compile 'Secret #' FAQ?


To the group:

Let's say one of us were to volunteer his/her time to compile
something with the commonly asked-about numbers to get a ringback,
etc.

If we did it for all the exchanges in all the major North American
population centers, do you think it could be something a couple of
people could manage?

What would be an efficient way of soliciting tidbits of knowledge from
the far-flung corners of the Net? Maybe just a questionaire to fill
out:

EXCHANGE:    556
CITY:        Tin City, NJ
RINGBACK:    445<your number>
HEAR YOUR NUMBER:

        958
CANCEL CALL WAITING:
        *67
ETC,ETC

I don't know. I'm curious to hear opinions on how hard it would be to
initiate a project like this.


Chris Taylor    [e-mail]   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: One of the things you'd have to contend with is the
frequency with with which 'ringback' and in particular 'hear your
number' code numbers are changed. 'They' do not like people outside
the telco to know these or use them, thus the routine varies from
community to community, and sometimes from month to month. You would
have a lot of changes in your list on a regular basis.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 22:50:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 1-800-CALL-ATT 'ext. 21' to be Discontinued


In TELECOM Digest 13-87, I wrote that the 1-800-CALL-ATT x 21 number
was being discontinued.  Enough people wrote to ask me what this
number was for that I figured I should explain.

In the United States a telephone customer has the right to use a
competitive long distance company for telephone calls which are
outside the same state or certain intra-state calls.

The usual practice is for the customer to select the carrier they
want.  Or they can often dial 1-0 and the three digit code (usually
called the '10XXX code') belonging to that carrier.  Some telephones,
especially private pay stations and hotels, have their lines connected
to a specific carrier (because of commissions paid by the carrier) and
even go so far as to block the '1-0-xxx' code (which is illegal, like
'red lining' some areas so that people can't use credit cards to some
countries, but it's done anyway).  Also, if you are calling from an
office that cannot give you a dial tone to dial a long distance call,
you may have to use an operator and pay more for the call.

So AT&T, like its competitors, implemented a code off of one of its
800 numbers you could dial into, then when you got to AT&T's "welcome"
message, you could punch in '21' on a touch-tone pad and be given to
AT&T's switch and be able to dial a call directly over AT&T's
facilities.

So AT&T is getting so many calls on that 800 number that they've moved
calls for their switch to that number.

"And now you know, the rest of the story."  - Paul Harvey


Paul Robinson -- [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard B Dervan)
Subject: Re: 900 Numbers Tarnished Beyond Repair?
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 04:03:01 GMT


[e-mail] (James Deibele) writes:

> I was talking to a developer friend, and he was interested in 900
> numbers as a way of selling his shareware: I'd set up a normal
> DOS-based BBS for him, and people could call up and download the
> program.  He'd only make a few dollars per download, but he'd have the
> money without having to take phone orders or mail out floppies.  Say
> he got a steady number of calls, five or ten a day at a profit of
> $5-10 each call. He'd be making a little over $1000 month after
> deducting the price of 900 setup charges and usage charges.

Well, why doesn't he just set up a 900 service so they can get a
registration number?  A local chat-line system here works like this ...

1) Call 900 number with modem and enter the 'system id';
2) 900 number gives you a code;
3) You enter that code on the BBS;
4) Presto!  Instant time!

That might be easier.  Just charge $15/call or something like that.
The service is provided by another company so you only have to give
that company it's cut.  The person could call the 900 number, get the
code, and then call your friend's BBS with the code and either get a
registration key or access to a registered version of the program.
That way people could still call and get the evaluation copies.


Richard B Dervan                       [e-mail]
System Support Programmer/Analyst      [e-mail]
Information America, Inc

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 23:01:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Local Cellular Channel Distribution


ES> Someone mentioned the other day that of the 800 odd cellular channels
ES> available, only one sixth of these would be in use in a given area (at
ES> least, per cell carrier).

If I remember, it's done in groups called "A" through "G" and set up
similar to a honeycomb.  There are some documents in the Telecom
Digest archives that explain it, I think, and if not, there are some
books you can look for in a good technical bookstore or library.  This
stuff isn't secret, and that's what's so stupid about ...

ES> Is it then possible to deduce from the frequency of a single
ES> channel verified to be in use exactly which 100 or so channels
ES> would be active?

I am not sure.  I think so, but the objective is to prevent the same
channel being used in adjacent cells, so it may be possible.  The
documents I've glanced tell all this.  I wasn't very interested at the
time to bother with it.

But how would you know that a particular channel is 'verified to be in
use'?  You wouldn't be doing anything such as (gasp) *scanning* any of
the cellular frequencies would you?  That's illegal.  And we all know
that none of the readers of this TELECOM Digest would ever do anything
illegal like that, wouldn't we?

ES> This would be useful since one could key in these frequencies
ES> and 'scan' them instead of frequency searching.

Err, next time you want to ask a question like this, I suggest you use
the 'double blind anonymous posting service' from Finland as it might
be inconvenient if some men in dark suits were watching for you.  Oh,
I'm sorry; you're concerned about someone *else* scanning those
frequencies: you don't have to worry about eavesdropping; it's illegal
and that will stop people, right?  :)


Paul Robinson -- [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: The Definitive Word on TTL Fields
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 04:14:55 GMT


Mark Boolootian <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I would like to challenge you to produce a traceroute for me with 30
> hops in it (and no routing loops!).

I could have done it back when NEARNET was off of JvNC; JvNC added
about 5-10 hops to *any* outgoing connection.  Add the T3 backbone, a
few internal hops at each end-site, and, say, a few bounces through
BARRnet, and you've got 30.

Now, of course, I'm on Alternet, so I get really low hopcounts to
everywhere, or so it seems ... your machine is 17 hops away, and
that's actually a bit high (Alter -> T3 -> ESnet).  Bet it would have
approached 30 from a "backwater NEARNET" site back in the JvNC days.


Christopher Davis * <[e-mail]> * <[e-mail]>

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

From: [e-mail] (Glenn McComb)
Subject: Re: PacBell IntraLATA Rate Ripoffs
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 04:20:58 GMT


Sorry, I forgot to mention that the access is via 950+.  If I use them
for my 1+ carrier, I believe PacHell will still trap the intra-lata
calls unless I use my 950+ access number.  The bypass also has 800+
access.  I've been using the 950+ access on my speed dial, and it
doesn't seem to mind that I pass them 1 + xxx + xxx + xxxx, so I can
use the "950" button + regular button to dial via Execuline, or I can
use my regular speed dial button alone to dial via my 1+ carrier
(MCI).

Rigth now, I'm only setup with a "credit card" access; they aren't my
primary carrier.  So far, I've been happy with the quality, so I might
change in the future.  They also offer accounting codes, so MCI
doesn't sound like such a good deal anymore (to me).



Glenn A. McComb            [phone] ofc * 725-0222 fax |
McComb Research             PO Box 220 * Cupertino, CA 95015 |
gmccomb @ netcom.com                     MHS: glenn @ mccomb |

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: Standard Dialing Plan
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 04:55:50 GMT


> There's nothing more annoying than a telco switch that says "It is
> not necessary to dial 1 and the area code for this number".  If telco
> knows what number is intended, why doesn't it just go ahead and
> complete the call?!

It doesn't know what number is intended.  It knows what number you
dialed.

The message is a polite way of saying "You were about to reach a wrong
number!  But luckily we noticed that the number you dialed would be a
local (or in-area) call, while you dialed in a manner requesting a
long-distance (or out-of-area) call.  Since everyone knows the extent
of their local calling area (or area code), you must have been calling
the wrong number.  Please try again and dial the right number now."

Obviously there are people for whom this trap is a disservice, but
there are others for whom it's a service.

Maybe it would be a good compromise if this trap was retained, but
011-1-npa-xxx-xxxx was allowed for all calls within the NANP, even
local ones, with the charging as if you'd dialed them the usual way.
Nobody's likely to dial 011-1 by accident, are they?


Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Denny)
Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 05:39:18 GMT
Organization: Alisa Systems, Inc.


My kid tells me that it is "in" to have a pager, whether you're a drug
dealer or not. Each of those pagers have their own seven-digit phone
number, and you can buy 'em at the local stationery store. The service
is something like $15/mo.

No wonder phone numbers are disappearing so fast!!!


Robert B. Denny                    voice: [phone]
Alisa Systems, Inc.                  fax: [phone]
Pasadena, CA   ([e-mail], ..uunet!alisa.com!denny)


[Moderator's Note: In the Chicago Public Schools, pagers are
considered verbotin and are confiscated from students.  This is part
of the War on Drugs.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 23:13:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Graybar Hotel, Sorry.


I wrote:

> Until it was torn down a few years ago, the post office would forward
> mail addressed to the "Graybar Hotel" to the Los Angeles County Jail.

TELECOM Moderator queried:

> [Moderator's Note: Did they tear down the post office, or the County
> Jail?   PAT]

Sorry, the info was from an article about the end of the Graybar Hotel
as the new County Jail was finished and the old 'Graybar Hotel' was
torn down.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #97
*****************************