TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 Dec 93 01:04:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 843 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson New Service From NY Tel - 'Reverse Directory' (Danny Burstein) "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous (Danny Burstein) Prepaid Phone Pass by Bell Canada (David Leibold) Use a 9600 Baud US Modem in UK? (Mike Carlton) Re: Privacy and Caller ID/Auto Callback? (Steve Cogorno) Re: Privacy and Caller ID/Auto Callback? (John R. Levine) Re: NPA Questions (Jean-Marc Fortier) Re: NPA Questions (Carl Moore) Re: NPA Questions (Brian Nunes) Re: NPA Questions (Mike King) Re: NPA Questions (David Leibold) Re: NPA Questions (Paul Robinson) Re: ATM News Groups Wanted (Harry Schroeder) Re: 500 Channel Cable Television (Todd D. Hale) Re: Intro Book on Telecommunications Wanted (Doug Gurich) Re: Caller ID in Software? (David Jones) Re: 911 Changes in Toronto (Robert L. Ullmann) Administrivia - A Few Lost Messages (TELECOM Digest Editor) 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 GEnie. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson Associates of Skokie, Illinois USA. We provide telecom consultation services and long distance resale services including calling cards and 800 numbers. To reach us: Post Office Box 1570, Chicago, IL 60690 or by phone at 708-329-0571 and fax at 708-329-0572. Email: ptownson@townson.com. ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. TELECOM Digest is gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom. It has no connection with the unmoderated Usenet newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom.tech whose mailing list "Telecom-Tech Digest" shares archives resources at lcs.mit.edu for the convenience of users. Please *DO NOT* cross post articles between the groups. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein) Subject: New Service From NY Tel - 'Reverse Directory' Date: 29 Dec 1993 23:03:04 -0500 Just caught the following public notice ad in {Newsday}, Dec 29, 1993 (tore it out without markking down the page number): "Notice of proposed changes in Telephone company regulations" "Notice is hereby given .... to be effective Feb 4, 1993 ... for Reverse Directory Assistance: RDA provides callers with the listed name, listed address, including zip code if available, for a given business or government telephone number. The ad goes on to say that it will be available in the 'Downstate Metropolitan LATA", and explains how useful it will be. Charge is listed at $0.45 "per given telephone number." Note a few points: This is ONLY for business and government listings. Also, it's not clear from the wording what happens if you ask for a residential or an unlisted number. Also unmentioned is what happens if you call NYC directory assistance using a long distance carrier. Take care, danny (10288) 0-700-864-3242 dannyb@panix.com adds: all the usual disclaimers regarding liability, intelligence, accuracy apply. spelling disclaimer is doubled. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If it works like the same service in Chicago, it won't be reachable through directory assistance. You will dial a seven digit number. That number will carry a toll charge of 45 cents per call/lookup, and on long distance calls, only the regular toll charge (from wherever the person is calling) will apply. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein) Subject: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous Date: 29 Dec 1993 23:09:23 -0500 A new service offered in the NYC area by NY Tel (soon to be called Nynex) is called "Anonymous Call Rejection." This tariff allows you (at a fee, of course) to take calls coming from caller-id BLOCKed numbers and reroutte them to a recording saying something like: We're sorry, the person you called does not take calls from anonymous callers. If you want to reach this person, please redial from an unblocked line ... For good measure, this also does -not- ring your phone until the person tries again from an unblocked line. Now, aside from the obvious problems of a friend calling from a line which they don't know is blocked, and not knowing how to unblock it, there's another issue. Many of the COCOTS get their CNID blocked in an attempt to reduce fraud (or, perhaps I should say, other people's fraud ...). So there you are, sitting at the COCOT, trying to make the call, and wasting quarter after quarter ... dannyb@panix.com adds: all the usual disclaimers regarding liability, intelligence, accuracy apply. spelling disclaimer is doubled. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No not really, because the call will not supervise, thus the COCOT will not collect your coin if it is properly programmed to return money for lack of an answer or in the event of a busy signal, etc. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 22:14 WET From: djcl@io.org (woody) Subject: Prepaid Phone Pass by Bell Canada Bell Canada's Hello Phone Pass is the Canadian answer to such long standing services as Talk Tickets and many other prepaid calling schemes worldwide. The idea of the pass is that it gives $20 worth of calling time via a special 800 number. Each pass has a serial number which is used when placing the calls and is entered via touch tones. There are voice prompts to indicate how much time can be had on a call, and when only a minute is left for the call. Another 800 number is used for assistance. The costs of placing calls through Bell Canada's phone pass (CAD$): Calls within a province 50c/min Calls within Canada, outside home province $1.00/min Calls from Canada to U.S.A. $1.50/min Calls from Canada to U.K. $2.00/min Calls from Canada to Europe/Americas $2.50/min Calls from Canada to Pacific/Asia $3.00/min Each 50 cents is set up as a "unit" of calling time; thus a $20 pass will have 40 units. Local calls are considered to be a call within province, so these will cost 50 cents a minute using the pass (whereas a payphone only gobbles up 25 cents for unlimited local time). David Leibold ------------------------------ From: carlton@ISI.EDU (Mike Carlton) Subject: Use a 9600 Baud US Modem in UK? Date: 29 Dec 1993 19:34:14 -0800 Organization: USC Information Sciences Institute I've got a friend who'll soon be moving to the UK (Durham actually). She's got a Hayes compatible 9600 baud modem that she would like to take with her and use there. Can anyone tell me if she can expect it to work with the British phone system? Is there a special initialization necessary for the modem? Do they use the same standard phone jacks as used in the US? Thanks, mike (carlton@isi.edu) ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: Privacy and Caller ID/Auto Callback? Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 12:17:28 -0800 (PST) Said by: Mitch Wagner > foot the bill for a second phone line. What is the cost of a second > phone line, anyway? -- $50/mo. and maybe a few hundred dollars install > charge, right? This brings up an interesting point: What DO the various telephone companies charge as their basic rate? Out here in PacBell territory, we pay 8.95 for unmeasured service. What about other areas? Is this low? Steve cogorno@netcom.com #608 Merrill * 200 McLaughlin Drive * Santa Cruz, CA 95064-1015 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 23:26 EST From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: Privacy and Caller ID/Auto Callback? Organization: I.E.C.C., Cambridge, Mass. > I think that supposedly intelligent people (doctors, lawyers, social > workers, and their employers) should find their OWN solution to that > issue and not burden the public-switched-telephone-network, and the > rest of us, with their problems. Funny about that. I think that supposedly intelligent people (computer nerds, telemarketers, etc.) who feel that they want to know who's calling before picking up the phone should find their OWN solution to that issue and not burden the public-switched-telephone- network, and the rest of us, with their problems. CL-ID is a solution looking for a problem. Or maybe the other way around. Pat: we've demonstrated many times in the past that nobody's going to be persuaded by these arguments. Can we cut this thread off here? Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, jlevine@delphi.com, 1037498@mcimail.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Snip, snip, snip. Thread cut off. How long will it be until it comes back around again? PAT] ------------------------------ From: jeanmarc@Ingres.COM (Jean-Marc Fortier) Subject: Re: NPA Questions Date: 29 Dec 93 17:11:10 GMT Reply-To: jeanmarc@toto.ingres.com (Jean-Marc Fortier) Organization: Ingres Corporation, A subsidiary of The ASK Group, Inc. Bill Hofmann (wdh@netcom.com) wrote: > 2. BESIDES dialing Fort Worth to Dallas (817 to 214) and other towns > in that corridor, are there any other localities which > REQUIRE 10 digit dialing across NPA boundaries (for non-toll > calls, I guess)? Toronto with the split 416-905 does the same thing. in 416 to call 905 (local) dial 905 + seven digits; in 905 to call 416 (local) dial 416 + seven digits; in all cases long distance is 1 + areacode + seven digits; if you dial (from 416) a 905 + seven digit number that is not a local call you get an intercept message to dial 1 + area + seven. Jean-Marc Fortier ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 12:18:41 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: NPA Questions wdh@netcom.com (Bill Hofmann) writes: > 1. Does any state publish 1 + NPA+ 7d AND 0 + 7d instructions? I have > here that Delaware still does (302). Carl Moore's note in > "history" yhat 213 does is incorrect. Is the "1 + NPA + 7d" intended to refer to long distance within area code? I have continued to see 1 + 7D for long distance within Delaware (302); how do you arrive at your remark about 302? As for 213 (which has 7D for long distance within it), I did write in the PAST tense about its continuing to publish 0+7D for 0+ within it; because of your apparent confusion, I have added "but for some time" to the next version. > 2. BESIDES dialing Fort Worth to Dallas (817 to 214) and other towns > in that corridor, are there any other localities which > REQUIRE 10 digit dialing across NPA boundaries (for non-toll > calls, I guess)? Yes, the NPA + 7D scheme is seen for some other local calls: within the DC area (area codes 301, 202, 703) across the 301/410 border in Md. (and this affects some of the DC area suburbs, such as Silver Spring) across 416/905 border in Ontario. But I think local from 215 area to other area codes (and from New Jersey to out of state) requires 1 + NPA + 7D. FYI, 510 allows 1 + 510 dialing, I haven't checked other Bay Area area codes. 510 does publish 7D, rather than 1+510+7D, for long distance within it. But as I say in the history file, the suggestion exists that any call within +1 be makeable as 1 + NPA + 7D. ------------------------------ From: bnunes@netcom.com (Brian Nunes) Subject: Re: NPA Questions Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 21:08:12 GMT On Tue, 28 Dec 1993 16:30:19 PST Bill Hofmann (wdh@netcom.com) wrote: > In reviewing the various sources (telecom postings, discussions with > LECs, etc), I'm left with a few questions that folks out there may be > able to help with: (material omitted) > 2. BESIDES dialing Fort Worth to Dallas (817 to 214) and other towns > in that corridor, are there any other localities which > REQUIRE 10 digit dialing across NPA boundaries (for non-toll > calls, I guess)? Depending on your locale, the following calls may be non-toll: NPA 310 (East Los Angeles) to/from NPA 714 (Orange County) NPA 310 (East Los Angeles) to/from NPA 213 (Metro L.A.) NPA 818 (L.A. Valleys) to/from NPA 213 (Metro L.A.) NPA 714 (Orange County) to/from NPA 909 (Inland Empire) NPA 818 (L.A. Valleys) to/from NPA 909 (Inland Empire) Brian Nunes=*-*-*-*-*-* bnunes@netcom.com -*-*-1-213-656-9117 7985 Santa Monica Blvd. #109-473, West Hollywood, CA 90046-5112 ------------------------------ From: mk@TFS.COM (Mike King) Subject: Re: NPA Questions Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 14:43:32 PST Virtually all the non-toll inter-NPA calls in the C&P service areas near the District of Columbia (MD, VA, and DC) require the NPA to be dialed. Dialing '1' is optional, though, and if the call is non-toll, dialing '1' won't incur a charge. Toll call, however, DO require the '1'. These calls include 301<->202, 301<->703, 202<->703, 301<->410, and possibly, 410<->202. Mike King (mk@tfs.com) Usual disclaimers... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 18:28 WET From: djcl@io.org (woody) Subject: Re: NPA Questions 416/905 requires NPA+7D for local calls between 416 and 905 (Metro Toronto boundary), mandatory as of March 1994. Washington DC metro area (202/301/703) already does. Rochester Tel now requires 1 + 315 + 7D for local calls from its 716 points to local 315 NPA points. And no doubt there will be more ... David Leibold ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 21:31 EST Subject: Re: NPA Questions From: Paul Robinson Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA In the National Capital area, for interstate local calls between DC and its Maryland and Virginia Suburbs, one must dial the 10 digit number, e.g. 202 Nxx-xxxx, 301 Nxx-xxxx or 703 Nxx-xxxx. The ten digit number will be accepted for all local calls even if it is the same area code, so you don't have to reprogram a speed dialer if you use a phone in a different area code than where you programmed it. In Virginia, dialing 703 before a local number makes the call take longer than dialing the 7 digit number alone. (Dialing the area code on a local call used to not work at all). In Maryland, using 301 does not add any extra time to the call setup, except it provides one useful feature: if the number being dialed is outside the local area you get a recording saying it can't complete your call; if you dial that same call with 301 first, you get a recording telling you to dial 1 before the number. The reason being that many exchanges that are non-local from Maryland and Virginia Suburbs were local exchanges in DC or the other state and before the area code was required on local interstate calls, you could dial a number anywhere in DC or the VA and MD suburbs by dialing the 7 digit number. Callers outside of Washington could call someone in a Maryland suburb by dialing either 301 or 202 and Virginia suburb numbers worked on both 703 and 202. > FYI, 510 allows 1+510 dialing, I haven't checked other Bay Area > area codes. In Maryland, I know that you can dial 1 first even if the call is local. I haven't tried testing the other two areas much, as I don't get to Virginia more than once a month and I try to stay out of the District of Cocaine as much as is humanly possible. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I thought that Our Nation's Capitol was located in the District of Crime, not the District of Cocaine. I know the street violence there is almost as bad as Chicago, maybe even worse. Cocaine or crime, its not surprising considering the Congress of the USA provides local Washington DC government. PAT] ------------------------------ From: has3@cscns.com (Harry Schroeder) Subject: Re: ATM News Groups Wanted Organization: Community_News_Service Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 13:33:50 GMT Donald Army (darmy@symantec.com) wrote: :>>Are there any news groups on ATM?? :>>Thanks, :>>darmy@symantec.com There is the comp.dcom.cell-relay group which has quite a bit of ATM discussions. You might want to check there. Harry Schroeder MCI Mail: HSchroeder Internet: has3@cscns.com or 5999840@mcimail.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks also to Rudof Meyer and several others for providing identical answers not printed here. PAT] ------------------------------ From: thale@Novell.COM (Todd D. Hale) Subject: Re: 500 Channel Cable Television Organization: Novell, Inc., Provo, UT, USA Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 17:51:17 GMT Also, about 500+ channels: they need not all be allocated. We could only dedicate 100 or so, and use the rest for ON DEMAND programming. Sure, that's only 400 or so households being serviced on demand, but that can be overcome by splitting subscription areas into small enough regions (mega mega bit backbones with 500 channel local bandwidth). Perhaps I missed this discussion earlier in the thread?? BTW, when I say on demand programming, I refer to anything from local to world news to sports news to movies to sitcoms to WHATEVER. Can't wait, myself. Imagine sitting down to local news and hitting some NEXT story button when you're ready to move on. Or, select a set of stories from a table of contents and play it through. Etc, etc ... Todd D. Hale thale@novell.com halet@bert.cs.byu.edu Unofficially speaking, of course. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 14:30:34 CST From: Doug_Gurich@fcircus.sat.tx.us (Doug Gurich) Subject: Re: Intro Book on Telecommunications Wanted > I am looking for recommendations for introductory books on > telecommunications. I'm familiar with Pierce's "Signals" but would > like something more recent. One such book that I have read recently, and would eagerly recommend, is called, "Guess Who's Listening at the Other End of Your Telephone?" by Barry H. Harrin. It provides an insider's look into the management of the telecommunications industry. Told in a humorous, entertaining manner, the book details Mr. Harrin's true life experiences in the telecommunications industry. The stories provide a good "behind the scenes" look at such companies as AT&T, Southern Bell, Claydesta/Fiberline and NTS Communications. Some chapter titles are: Ma Bell's Indoctrination Management-New York Style Welcome to Southern Fried Bell Attack of the Clay People Bringing Civilization and Fiber Optics to Texas The Texas Dial Tone Massacre Pirates of the Potomac This is a great book for learning how the industry has evolved in recent years. It especially provides a good look at how the decision makers work and the things they will do to get ahead in the business. I very much recommend it. It is available from Commanche Press at 906 Lightstone, San Antonio, TX 78258 and is $19.95 plus $3.00 S&H. ------------------------------ From: dej@eecg.toronto.edu (David Jones) Subject: Re: Caller ID in Software? Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 21:05:49 -0500 In article pdh@netcom.com (P D H) writes: > I take it that a lot of people are interested in which modems do > include the hardware feature and have cooresponding firmware to deal > with it. I would suspect one reasonable way to deal with it is when > the "RING" message comes from the modem, the second one can include > the caller-id info. Then your host software can choose to do with it > as it wants. Let's get down to specifics: The ZyXEL U-series modems do caller ID. Here's a typical terminal trace: RING TIME: 29-12-93 21:08:26 CALLER ID: 416 555 1212 RING I've tried this out on my ZyXEL, and it works fine for me. I have heard reports of problems with some exchanges, but my modem works fine in 416-463. David Jones, M.A.Sc student, Electronics Group (VLSI), University of Toronto email: dej@eecg.utoronto.ca, finger for more info/PGP public key ------------------------------ From: ariel@world.std.com (Robert L Ullmann) Subject: Re: 911 Changes in Toronto Organization: The World in Boston Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 02:50:17 GMT My opinion: clearly, it is very bad news if the 911 service ignores a call and it turns out to be a real emergency. I'd suggest a city bylaw that states that there is a mandatory $5000 service charge for false alarms generated by automatic devices. (NOT A FINE, note; just an ordinary bill for city services; this makes it much easier to enforce.) I understand that U.S. cities typically have this sort of rule for false fire service alarms, whether automatic or not. Robert Ullmann Ariel@World.STD.COM +1 617 693 1315 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 00:48:55 -0600 From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Administrivia: A Few Lost Messages Due to a bug in my script here a few of the messages you sent me on Monday and Tuesday were lost in processing. I've finally figured out *why* this happens at irregular intervals; now the trick will be to find the solution, but I think I can. So if you wrote to the Digest on Monday or Tuesday of this week and your message has not yet appeared *as of this issue and what appears above* then it got sent to dev/null in error, and I ask you to submit it again with my sincere apologies. I know, I asked you this same thing a couple weeks ago and part of the growing pains around here involves making some serious modifications to message processing because of the huge volume of stuff arriving which has to be sorted and picked through, etc. So anyway, mostly it was whatever you sent me on Tuesday. Replace it if you can please, as we wind down another year here together. There will be a couple more issues of the Digest this week to wind things up, then publication will resume sometime over the weekend with Volume 14. Sometime over the weekend the Index of Subjects and Authors for volume 13 will be compiled and added to the exist- ing indexes of same in the archives. A new archives roadmap or directory will also be published. In addition, I have a special report on Digicom modems for you to read, and that will be mailed out in the next few days. See you again tomorrow. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #843 ****************************** ****************************************************************************** Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253