TELECOM Digest Mon, 21 Feb 94 05:12:00 CST Volume 14 : Issue 92 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson US West WA State Payphone Restrictions (Bruce Miller) These Cell Phones Don't Work - Why? (Sean Petty) Monster (800) Number (vantek@aol.com) GSM Packet Data Addressing? (Antti Hannula) Information on Americom Communications Inc. (Steve Hutzley) Answering Machine Accepting Collect Calls (Deborah Castillo) Area Code Closeness (Paul Robinson) Cheap Long Distance (Allen Walker) Unattended File Transfer Program (Shareware) (Bob Malik) Pac Bell 1994 ISDN Plans (Bob Larribeau) General Magic? (Antti Hannula) 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. 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, 20 Feb 1994 01:56:10 PST From: Bruce Miller Subject: US West WA State Payphone Restrictions BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION In re the Investigation on the ) Commission's Motion ) DOCKET NO. UT-940171 ) PAY TELEPHONE CALL ) NOTICE OF INQUIRY RESTRICTION ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission establishes this inquiry, on a subject of possible rulemaking, to discover information and to evaluate options to reduce disruptive or illicit activity at locations of public pay telephones in the State. In 1993, U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST), requested a declaratory ruling that WAC 480-120-138, the Commission's principal pay telephone rule, allowed the company to configure pay telephones so that location providers or adjacent businesses could temporarily disable the telephones' ability to accept coins. [1] The Commission entered an order on June 2, 1993, declaring that existing rules did not permit the proposed action. The order recognized the interests involved, and suggested that if U S WEST wished to pursue the issue, it come forward with more information to seek either a waiver of the existing rule or a change in the rule. The company did request a rule change. [2] On December 9, 1993, it petitioned the commission to change WAC 480-120-138 to allow it to restrict certain pay telephones (at the request of the subscriber, community, space provider, or law enforcement agency) from accepting coins between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Emergency access and operator assistance would be available from the coin restricted instruments, and the phones would be clearly posted. The Commission found that it still did not have information sufficient to satisfy it that the proposal was the most appropriate way to handle the varied interests involved. The company withdrew the proposal with the Commission's consent at its open public meeting on February 9, 1994. The Commission has recognized the troublesome nature of complex conflicting public interests: in public safety and freedom from illicit activity, on the one hand, and in convenient and predictable telephone access, on the other. __________________________ [1] Docket No. UT-930430. [2] Docket No. UT-931556. It also requested a waiver of the rule to allow coin disabling at limited locations, which the Commission is considering in Docket No. UT-931491. DOCKET N0. UT-940171 PAGE 2 The Commission also recognizes that complete removal of a pay telephone is a possible alternative if other measures, including law enforcement intervention, cannot control illicit activity that interferes with personal security or public safety. When that happens, no public telephone service at all is available. The existing rule allows restriction of a pay telephone to one-way service upon written request by a law enforcement agency. Many of the affected phones have already been restricted to one-way service, the illicit behavior is still occurring, and some space providers have asked U S WEST to remove the phones. To learn more about these pay telephone problems and to consider options, the Commission has ordered that this Notice of Inquiry be issued and that the Commission and its Staff gather information and promote dialogue aimed at understanding and resolving conflicting public interests. The Commission has attached to this notice a summary of background factors and potential issues, and a list of questions for commenters to address. Interested persons have the following opportunity to present comments to the Commission: Written comments should be sent to Steve McLellan, Secretary, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 1300 Evergreen Park Drive S.W., Olympia, WA 98504-7250, to reach the Commission by March 9, 1994. Please mark all comments with Docket No. UT-940171. Informal work sessions will be held after public comment is received, to allow representatives of affected groups or institutions to discuss information and explore solutions. The Commission also anticipates holding one or more meetings to receive oral comment when specific rule amendments are being evaluated. It will notify every commenter, and every other person who asks for the notification, of the time and place of those meetings. DATED at Olympia, Washington this 9th day of February 1994. WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION /signed/ Steve McLellan, Secretary INQUIRY ON PAY TELEPHONE COIN RESTRICTION PAGE 1 DOCKET NO. UT-940171 INTERESTS AT ISSUE; SPECIFIC QUESTIONS The Commission invites interested persons to address comments to the following issues and specific questions. Please note that this is not a ballot in which votes will be counted, but a way to identify public opinion and hear suggestions for further discussion. If you see other interests or have comments not addressed to the questions, please describe those to the Commission. Every comment is valuable. AFFECTED INTERESTS The Commission has identified the following interests affected by illicit pay phone use and its consequences: * Illicit activity at a pay telephone site can be disruptive to a neighborhood, a potential source of crime and a strong deterrent to law-abiding customers' patronization of nearby businesses. * Reasonable access to pay phones is needed by consumers. Some may not have residential phone service, and pay telephones may be their only source of telecommunications. Some may be tourists or visitors in the community. * Reasonable public telecommunications access is also needed for personal emergencies not involving a direct threat to life or property, such as auto breakdowns, delays, etc. * Areas most prone to illicit behavior near public telephones may be areas in which public telephones are most needed. * Non-emergency calls may be routed to emergency 911, simply because the caller does not have a calling card, coins are not accepted, and the only coin-free access is to 911. Such calls could interfere with emergency 911 service. * Coin restriction also results in higher, operator-assisted rates. Some consumers, for some calls, may be unable to call collect or bill a third party. * Some alternate operator service companies may charge higher than the prevailing operator assisted rates, perhaps paying a commission to the location owner or charging a location surcharge that directly benefits the location owner. This could provide an economic incentive to restrict coin use. * Complete removal of telephones may reduce the public's telecommunications convenience and emergency access. DOCKET NO. UT-940171 PAGE 2 POSSIBLE OPTIONS: The Commission has identified the following possible options. Please describe any experiences you have had with these or other options, state any statistics you have regarding success or failure, and describe public response. Please state your opinion of the various options, and add any additional ideas you may have about the effectiveness of any option. * Allowing coin restriction from 6:00 pm. to 6:00 arm. at the option of the pay phone provider, space provider, law enforcement agency, or other decider. * Allowing coin-restricted hours varying by location, when the problem specifically occurs at that telephone location. Offering debit cards through local merchants. * Replacing coin telephones with credit-only phones. * Replacing touch-tone telephones with rotary dial phones, although this would limit access to tone generated services such as voice mail, bank by phone, out-dialling [sic] to pagers. * Disabling key pads after X number of digits are entered -- also limiting use of tone-generated services. * Locating pay phones only in well lighted, clean areas. * Video monitoring the phone (with a notice on or near the phone stating that callers are monitored). * Playing distracting music near the pay telephone. * Reducing the number of phones in a bank Of phones. * Removing telephones completely at locations experiencing problems. SPECIFIC QUESTIONS: The Commission asks interested persons to address any potential solutions identified above, and to answer any questions in the following list that are pertinent to your situation. * Do you have residential telephone service? Do you have a calling card? Do you use pay telephones? How often? At what time, in general -- daytime, evening, or night, or a combination? When you use pay telephones, generally, do you use coins to make your call, a calling card, or other billing? (Please specify) DOCKET NO. UT-940171 PAGE 3 * Have you been frightened to use a telephone or to patronize a business, because of behavior near a pay telephone? If so, please describe the circumstances. * How would you feel about restricting coin calling from some pay telephones between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., if 911 emergency and operator assistance are available? Would you feel differently if the time were shortened, say between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.? Would any other times affect your answer? Why? * What circumstances (if any) justify coin restrictions? If a pay telephone were coin restricted, would the problem simply move to a different pay telephone? Would the problem still exist around a coin-restricted pay telephone? * How would a coin restricted phone affect persons in the neighborhood, who may not have a phone? If you have no residential telephone service, do you rely on pay telephones? For what kinds of calls do you use the pay telephone? How do you think a coin restricted phone would affect other residents in the neighborhood? Would locally available debit cards offer effective alternative access to coin restricted phones, or would they defeat the purpose of coin restriction in the first place? * Should coin restriction be allowed only when operator services are offered at or below prevailing rates, or at coin rates? * Is the consumer best served by allowing a form of restriction on the use of pay telephone, or simply by removing the phone? * Is it a law enforcement responsibility to work with the companies and affected groups about this issue, rather than the Commission's responsibility? * How may we measure the effectiveness of any solution? What criteria can be used? Please add any other comments about this issue. For more information please contact Suzanne Stillwell, Consumer Affairs section, at 1-800-562-6150. ------------------------------ From: seanp@garnet.msen.com (Sean Petty) Subject: These Cell Phones Dont Work - Why? Date: 20 Feb 1994 18:18:52 GMT Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, MI (account info: +1 313 998-4562) The customers on the other end were quite unhappy. Aparently their cellular phones had almost instantly ALL stopped working. It had us baffled, and we requested several of them to come into the shop so that we could further investigate the phenomenon. A serious look at many mobiles showed us that the phones would no longer work on the Comcast System, they were denied access and the phone went into roam. Switching them to the 'B' system (Bell Atlantic) revealed that the phones worked flawlessly on the competitor's equipment. When we contacted Comcast, they were less than helpful, almost seeming as if they were hiding some bit of technical gem, and they refused to give us a reason as to why all of these phones mysteriously quit working. The only information they provided was that they had upgraded some equipment and no longer supported the phones. The customers were obviously unhappy and many switched to the 'B' system, although Comcast did upgrade some of them. Anyhow, the other day Comcast published a letter saying: "The following phones are not compatible with our system -- all Motorola Model 8000-D's, All Harris Equipment, All Sony Portables that have a Black label under the battery, and All Panasonic HP 500's that haven't been upgraded." Why are these phones different from all others that make them incompatible? Sean ------------------------------ From: vantek@aol.com Date: Sun, 20 Feb 94 13:26:10 EST Subject: Monster (800) Number On the 'Monsters of the Gridiron' promotion ... > By the way, does anyone have any details about the platform they > used for this particular promotion? Or even some numbers such as how > many calls, how many ports, etc? I don't have any specific information on that particular promotion, but I did read an article recently on a similar promotion ran by Diet Pepsi. Their (800) number WAS (800) CALL-RAY. After being connected you got to hear an interactive recording of Ray Charles and the 'Uh-Huh Girls'. They sent out the phone number via direct mail (1,000,000 mailings) and got a bit over half a million calls. The calls were handled by a company named West Interactive of Omaha, NB, who claimed that 98% of the people who called actually listened through the whole 3 1/2 minute message. Those who responded had a chance to win a one-year supply of Diet Pepsi, and other miscellaneous instant prizes. BTW, NO the number is not still working. ------------------------------ From: aha@vipunen.hut.fi (Antti Hannula) Subject: GSM Packet Data Addressing Date: 20 Feb 94 18:45:08 GMT Organization: Helsinki University of Technology I would like to have information on the GSM Data Packet protocol. I've been told that GSM data is essentially 'slower' ISDN over the radioways. What does it mean in the compatibility etc. terms? How is the destination computer addressed from a mobile terminal using GSM packet data? Is it an ISDN number or something else? For the other end, does it look like a short connection or is it maybe using the 16k D-channel? Does anyone also know how would a server be like in order to provide information server for this GSM data protocol? All information concerning these problems is greatly appreciated, including pointers to other information sources on the subjects. Antti Hannula aha@niksula.hut.fi ------------------------------ From: hutzley@ranger.enet.dec.com (Steve Hutzley) Subject: Information on Americom Communications Inc. Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 15:03:40 GMT Dear Netters, I am seeking any information on a long distance/800 telephone company called AMERICOM COMMUNICATIONS INC., of Dayton, OH. ANY information is greatly appreciated. Please respond to: HUTZLEY@ranger.enet.dec.com Thank you in advance. Steve ------------------------------ From: castillo@unm.edu (deborah castillo) Subject: Answering Machine Accepting Collect Calls Date: 20 Feb 1994 03:02:24 -0700 Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque I was wondering if a phone company will let someone leave a message on my answering machine if this person calls collect, and I leave a message such as "We will accept charges for collect calls from xyz"??? The reason I need to know is because I will be out of town, and won't know at what number I can be reached. I have some relatives coming in on an international flight the same day. I just want them to be able to leave a message to me in case they get delayed etc. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Joke first, then a serious note -- tell your relatives to use a COCOT/AOS instead of a Genuine Bell phone. A lot of them are known to mysteriously process collect calls to phone bills which 'someone' approved. After the fact, they'll claim your answering machine must have 'pressed one to accept this call' or whatever. :) The real answer to your question is you should record your greeting to include the phrase, "operator, we will accept collect calls at this number". Obviously, you don't want to have that phrase on your machine except for the minimum amount of time you are in-transit. If you can change it remotely once you have a number where calls can be received then obviously you should do so. That phrase is usually only left on an answering machine on a permanent basis when a company is using it instead of an 800 number for whatever reason. Operators (at least the Bell/AT&T kind) are supposed to honor it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 06:43:35 EST From: Paul Robinson Reply-To: Paul Robinson Subject: Area Code Closeness Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA Telecom Digest Editor noted: > 212 is in New York and 213 is in California some four thousand miles away. And other mentions: 312 in Chicago; 313 in Detroit. And here's one long string: 413 in Massachusetts, 414 in Milwaukee, 415 in San Francisco, 416 in Toronto, etc. The most unusual one I noticed was a combined set. I always wondered why they had never reversed the two; had they done so, _both_ areas could have allowed people to advertise phone numbers of eight digits. The two areas were Dallas/Fort Worth and Los Angeles/Southern California (back then). Los Angeles is 213, Dallas is 214; Fort Worth is 713, Orange County and the rest of Southern California (was then) 714. Had they switched these, the Southern California area could have allowed people to advertise an 8 digit number starting with 3 or 4, since they would all have started with 21 or 71. And the Metroplex could have done the exact same thing only using the other two-digit group. I sometimes wondered why, when the new area code system was being intro- duced, that something akin to the Zip Code(R) system wasn't created, where the U.S. and Canada were broken into perhaps six or eight areas, and in each area the states were assigned a block of numbers corresponding to their prior usage, multiplied by 3 or 10, e.g. California would probably be assigned all of the numbers, say, 220-299, while the 320-399 group might encompass Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Alaska and Hawaii. Then you might have the 820-899 or 920-999 (or both) groups being used for the "non-assigned" number codes the way 700, 800 and 900 numbers are now. Well, twenty years from now when they probably have to change the area code system by adding another digit either to the phone number or the area codes (or both) to cover growth, I hope perhaps then they might consider some change that would make more sense. (The telephone companies think this change will last some fifty years, but with the massive changes already happening, I suspect that we will eat the additional 600+ area codes a lot faster than they think.) Let's consider: if they add one digit to the prefix code, making prefixes four digits, and one to the area code, making area codes four digits, it would make telephone numbers uniform at 4-4-4 digits. On the other hand, it would make them harder to memorize since seven is, based on many tests, the "standard memory size" of the human brain. Perhaps simply moving to four digit area codes some twenty years from now is enough; it would allow all local calls to remain seven digits while the area code expands, the way it did "twenty years ago back in 1995." We don't have video telephones yet, which could be on a different set of exchanges the way telex machines were; a movie could be assigned a telephone number during the week it's in use, or on a regular basis, just like 900 numbers are used to record polls. There are a lot of things we can probably do in the future we can't dream of now, which will probably eat telephone numbers (and area codes) even faster than we do now. Paul Robinson -- PAUL@TDR.COM [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The idea behind the original numbering scheme was to make the additional three digits as easy and fast to dial as possible in a time when rotary (pulse) dialing was the accepted standard. Although in the 1940-60 period, 'long dial pulls' were quite fashionable (and businesses wanted whenever possible to have a number ending in 'thousand' or 'hundred', the thinking was the public would not like having long dial pulls for area codes. So the places deemed to get the most calls via the long distance network from around the country got the low numbered, 'short pull' area codes, ie. New York = five pulses (212); Chicago and Los Angeles = six pulses (312 and 213); Detroit = seven pulses (313) along with other areas ranking about the same in population (214 and 412). But forty years ago when the current plan was started, New York, Chicago and Los Angeles were the major centers of commerce in the USA with Detroit very close behind. I do not know why Washington DC and the Maryland suburbs of DC got fourteen pulses (202 and 301) or why the Virginia suburbs of DC got twenty pulses (703). Generally by the time one got to the 15-20 pulse area codes (702, 801, 602, etc) one would be in (back then) relatively deserted, out of the way places such as Nevada, Utah and Arizona with their sparce populations). The early use of area codes requiring more than twenty pulses (808, 809, was almost non-existent but a few were around. So that was the thinking: make it a quick job to dial long distance calls yourself at a time when long distance operators were still putting through the bulk of the LD traffic as Direct Distance Dialing (DDD) was getting phased in. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Allen Walker Subject: Cheap Long Distance! Date: Sun, 20 Feb 94 11:02:42 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) GTI telecom introduces the lowest long distance telephone rates imaginable! Here is some information about the CALL AMERICA TRAVEL PLAN from GTI. Calls may be placed TO and FROM any of the 50 states at ANYTIME of the DAY at the incredible rate of $2.60 per hour. This means you can call 24hrs/7 days a week at this rate! Here's how the plan works: GTI offers it's service via an 800 number so you will not have to change your long distance carrier to signup. All members are given two (2) PIN codes to access the system. The first PIN code, allows you to make calls at the incredible rate of only $2.60 per call. Each of these calls may last up to one hour in duration. However, if you spend LESS than one minute, you will only be billed $.30 instead of $2.60. If your call extends past one hour you will be billed 17.5 cents/minute (6 second increments) every minute thereafter. The second PIN code is used for those short calls you make. These calls are billed at a FLAT rate of 17.5 cents/minute (6 sec increments), again with no time restrictions. This rate is still very competitive against major carriers at DAYTIME and some EVENING rates. Calls to Canada and Puerto Rico are a flat $.48/min and $.24/min respectively. Here is a typical question people ask: What if I don't use a FULL hour? Even if you only use 25 minutes with your HOUR PIN code you will still save money. If the call lasts 25 minutes at 13 cents/min the call will cost you $3.25 compared to GTI's $2.60. And 13 cents/min is often the cheapest rate you can call with other major carriers. So either way you will save. What's more, you can use this from any phone in the USA! This may sound to good to be TRUE but it isn't. GTI is expanding on a daily basis and the service is excellent. The cost to signup is a one time $25 registration fee. This is accompanied by a 60 DAY RISK FREE GUARANTEE, meaning your $25 will be refunded if you wish to cancel within that period of time. If you wish to have a signup brochure sent to you via USMAIL or have any other questions, send EMAIL replys to: Allen0@delphi.com. Please include your postal address if you wish to have the brochure sent to you now. Thank you! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've got an idea there is *something* we are overlooking or not hearing about here. If anyone gets the brochure on this, perhaps they will kindly type it in or summarize it further. PAT] ------------------------------ From: u3212alb@elm.circa.ufl.edu (Bob Malik) Subject: Unattended File Transfer Program (Shareware) Date: 20 Feb 1994 16:22:45 GMT Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville Is there a Shareware program available which is like pcAnywhere or LapLink V? I've been looking for something that provides the capability to perform scheduled (timed) file transfers unattended. I've looked at TeleReplica (TR4-26.zip) -- with it you can control another PC (remote computing) using a Modem, but you can't really set it up to do what I want. Also, I've looked at DATTRF.zip. If anyone has any info on this, please reply and post a message in the Digest, or you can send me email at: u3212alb@elm.circa.ufl.edu Thanks, Bob Malik u3212alb@elm.circa.ufl.edu ------------------------------ From: Bob Larribeau Subject: Pac Bell 1994 ISDN Plans Date: Sun, 20 Feb 94 13:25:47 -0800 Organization: Consultant Pac Bell recently provided some information on changes on their ISDN tariffs and service at an Executive Council meeting that may be of general interest. Centrex ISDN: A tariff simplification is planned for mid-year that will include reducing it down to one offering at $31.65 per month which . includes loop extension beyond 18 kft. . includes 2 B-channels of circuit voice or data . D-packet will be $4.00 per month additional SDS IS: Single line business service tariff will not be changed. Current tariff is $27.85 per month plus usage. Home ISDN: A residential ISDN tariff will be offered during the summer at $27.95 pr month. Usage charges will apply only during 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on weekdays. It will be charged on a flat rate basis at nights and weekends outside of this peak period. . includes loop extension beyond 18 kft. . includes 2 B-channels of circuit voice or data . D-packet will be $4.00 per month additional . $125 installation charge will be waived with 2 year commitment Primary Rate ISDN: Tariff is under redesign and a new tariff will be available before the end of 1994. ISDN Availability: Pac Bell will begin implementation of an ISDN ANYWHERE program to provide ISDN to all Pac Bell customers at tariffed rates regardless of whether ISDN is supplied by the local office or not. . it utilizes offices where ISDN is already deployed . based on aggregation of demand, it could allow for 100% availability with acceptance of a number change. ISDN Service Center: Pac Bell will complete implementation of an ISDN service center that will take all BRI orders by mid-year. It will have a statewide 800 number. Pac Bell ISDN Information: Switched Services Availability Hotline: 1-800-995-0346 Pac Bell Applications Bulletin Board: . analog dialup 510-277-1037 . ISDN line 510-823-4888 Ordering Information: 1-800-622-0735 Bob Larribeau San Francisco ------------------------------ From: aha@vipunen.hut.fi (Antti Hannula) Subject: General Magic? Date: 20 Feb 94 19:18:16 GMT Organization: Helsinki University of Technology I read an article about AT&T's and other's General Magic and Telescript systems. It sounds like very potential platform to implements some nice services, but currently I have no idea how to get more information on this. Does anyone know more about this? Information on the systems itself, how to develop an application with this etc? All information will be greatly appreciated, thanks! Antti Hannula Helsinki University of Technology aha@niksula.hut.fi ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #92 *****************************