TELECOM Digest     Tue, 31 Jan 95 23:39:00 CST    Volume 15 : Issue 71

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Earthquake in Area 206 (Ry Jones)
    Cellular Telephones Built Into Watches (Timothy Benson)
    Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (amer310@aol.com)
    Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (Judith Oppenheimer)
    Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? (Matthew P. 
Downs)
    Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? (Nick Sayer)
    Re: North Korea Holds US Representative Over $10K Phone Bill (Ben 
Combee)
    Re: Five Digit Phone Numbers (John Lundgren)
    Re: Five Digit Phone Numbers (Wes Leatherock)
    Re: Old Phone Number Format Question (Tony Harminc)
    Re: Privately Owned Cables on Public Utility Poles (John Lundgren)
    Re: Privately Owned Cables on Public Utility Poles (Patton M. 
Turner)
    Re: 500 Numbers and CID (John Lundgren)
    Last Laugh! Telecom and Pasta (Paul A. Migliorelli)

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 America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the 
moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. 

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax 
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: 708-329-0571
                        Fax: 708-329-0572
  ** 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 partially funded by a grant from the              
*
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    
* 
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   
* 
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as 
represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 
*
**********************************************************************
***

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your 
help 
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars 
per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: rjones@halcyon.halcyon.com (Ry Jones)
Subject: Earthquake in Area 206
Date: 31 Jan 1995 03:21:12 GMT
Organization: NW NEXUS, Inc. -- Internet Made Easy (206) 455-3505


Two days ago a small tremor hit NPA 206. I called someone on the other
side of Lake Washington on my cell because the land lines were
overloaded. I kept the phone off the hook for about ten seconds after 
I
had already connected on the cellular and finally got a dialtone.
Maybe Mt Rainier blew? :)

Interesting that in the few seconds after the tremor enough people
were already on the phone to overload it.


rjones@halcyon.com net.

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

Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 10:58:03 EST
From: Timothy Benson <tbenso01@hercules.baker.edu>
Subject: Cellular Telephones Built Into Watches


 I am a MBA student and I am currently doing market research on
the combination cellular telephone-wristwatch product.  Does your
company offer this product or something that would be considered a
competitor to this product?  Do you know where I might obtain some
information about a product like this?

Your assistance is appreciated.


Tim

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

From: amer310@aol.com (Amer310)
Subject: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs
Date: 31 Jan 1995 20:50:53 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: amer310@aol.com (Amer310)


Regarding Access Charges, I own a small long distance company so I
have to be somewhat of an expert. We pay roughly 50% of gross revenue
for access charges. The amounts range from 1.7 to 8 cents per minute
on each end of the call. Each Bell company or independent has 
different 
pricing for in state and out of state calls. There is also a differnce
in some states for originating vs terminating calls.

There is no such thing a free access period!

Let me know if you have any other questions.


Jeff

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

From: Judith Oppenheimer <producer@pipeline.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 10:25:43 -0500
Subject: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs  


David Lewis of AT&T wrote: 

> Is it just me, or do these numbers (which I'll take on faith for
> now) demonstrate a massive inefficiency and misallocation of costs 
in
> the current cost structure of telecommunications?

> If 95% of traffic is local (I'll define as "intraLATA"), Then 95% of
> costs (fixed and variable) are due to local traffic.  But the 
majority
> (say, 80%) of LEC revenue is from access charges.  Therefore 80% of
> revenue is paying for 5% of cost, and 20% of revenue is paying for 
95%
> of cost.

> Does this make sense?

Local should be charged higher because it is expensive.  You provide
unlimited free calling for a flat fee instead of charging on a call by
call basis.  Of course you lose money.  Local access charges are
profitable, and are on a call by call basis.  LEC's don't want to lose
that revenue.  With bypass and local exchange competition it could be
tough.

Remember the costs associated with access.  A LD call is dialed (say
international), the local switch has to do all the work to validate
the number and then pass it off to the pick.  The pick "just routes" a
number.  (oversimplification.)  But the LEC doesn't get paid for all
the incomplete calls, all the dial back calls, etc and that costs
money.

So local service pays for itself (barely) and profit comes from access
charges which is also an expensive proposition.  (Some local 
companies, 
especally rural, don't even handle long distance.  They just pass it
off to someone else to do.)  There is verification, routing and don't
forget billing to do.  It is expensive.


Judith Oppenheimer

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

From: mpd@adc.com (Matthew P. Downs)
Subject: Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money?
Date: 31 Jan 1995 13:38:12 GMT
Organization: ADC Telecommunications


I don't understand the difference ... it's all real money ... instead
of being able to lower my rates, they have to increase them in order
to purchase more switching capacity, pay more in employee wages to
track the fraud, buy more computers in order to analyze all calls that
are occurring, etc.

When does this become "unreal money"?  If my monthly minimum could
have been $9 instead of $20, that sure the hell is real money to
me ... maybe not to the cellular company, but to me it is.


$.02

Matt

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

From: nsayer@quack.kfu.com (Nick Sayer)
Subject: Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money?
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 
'guest'.
Date: 31 Jan 1995 06:53:43 UTC


Barry Margolin <barmar@nic.near.net> writes:

> So if fraudulent calls increase the load on the network, the carrier
> will have to increase the capacity to accomodate it.

Can anyone actually document a case where a carrier of _any_ sort, be
it cellular, local, long distance, or _airline_ for that matter has
actually had to increase capacity because of said fraudulent use?

Anyone?

> This costs money, but because the calls are fraudulent there's no
> corresponding income to pay for it.  This is precisely the same as 
any
> other kind of theft: the vendor fails to receive income when someone
> gets something that the vendor paid for.

That's as may be, but that conclusion proceeds from a rather tall
assumption.


Nick Sayer <nsayer@quack.kfu.com>   N6QQQ @ N0ARY.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM  
+1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'  URL: http://www.kfu.com/~nsayer/  

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

From: combee@prism.gatech.edu (Benjamin L. Combee)
Subject: Re: North Korea Holds US Representative Over $10K Phone Bill
Date: 31 Jan 1995 06:42:03 -0500
Organization: ROASF Atlanta
Reply-To: combee@prism.gatech.edu


In article <telecom15.60.1@eecs.nwu.edu>, Alan Shen 
<kermee@u.washington.
edu> wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Jan 1995, Paul Robinson wrote:

>> In Jack Anderson's column today, he reports that when 
Representative
>> Bill Richardson (D-New Mexico) tried to cross the DMZ 
(Demilitarized Zone)
>> between North and South Korea, with the casket carrying the remains 
of
>> Chief Warrant Officer David Hilemon, North Korean officials refused 
to let
>> him cross until the bill was paid. 

> Why didn't they just bring a satellite phone with him? Or was he out
> of range? $10K for 23 calls ... is a LITTLE too much for me ...

Apparently, the State Department didn't want to include North Korea in
their Friends & Family calling circle.  :)


#define NAME     "Ben Combee"
#define E-MAIL   "combee@prism.gatech.edu"
#define URL      "http://www.gatech.edu/acm/combee.html"

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

From: jlundgre@kn.PacBell.COM (John Lundgren)
Subject: Re: Five Digit Phone Numbers
Date: 31 Jan 1995 04:57:17 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Knowledge Network


Carl Moore (cmoore@ARL.MIL) wrote:

> I am originallly from Wilmington, Delaware.  For many years, what
> became the {News-Journal} newspapers were on what became 302-654-
5351.
> (Please don't call that number; it was changed long ago!)  
Originally
> (and I had to read about this since I am too young to remember that
> far back) it would have been printed as "Wilmington 4-5351" or 
simply
> "4-5351" with Wilmington being understood; I believe you had to ask
> the operator if you wanted to reach such a number. "Wilmington" was
> replaced by "OLympia" (OL for short) when it came time for customers
> to be able to dial directly.  Then, in 1966, Diamond State Telephone
> stopped printing exchange names in the Wilmington phone book, and
> existing numbers of form OLx-xxxx began to be printed as 65x-xxxx.

I have several wooden coat hangers that I inherited with four or five
digit numbers of the dry cleaners on them, probably from back in the
50's.  Then later, all the phone numbers were five digits preceded 
with
NEwmark as the word.  Now they are just 63x-xxxx.

> TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 

> Does anyone remember when all the military bases around the USA had
> their own special arrangements?  Camp McCoy in Wisconsin, for 
example,
> was just 'Camp McCoy' to the long distance operator; it had four 
digit
> extensions but no actual 'main listed number'. It was just 'Camp 
McCoy,
> extension xxxx' via the long distance operator.  Ditto Fort Benjamin
> Harrison in southern Indiana and Great Lakes Naval Base.   PAT]

I worked on a switchboard when I was in Gernmany, and I remember the
Autovon lines that we had.  I don't know why, but they were always
low in volume.  They worked but everyone had to yell in the field
phones to get thru.  Maybe that's why they were so weak: because the
phones were field phones.  We had phantom lines that were weak, but
some were better than the Autovon lines.  Then there were the lines
that were on the microwaves from missile site to missile site.  They
were always hollow sounding or singing.  I'm glad that things are a
lot better nowadays.  I really hated getting stuck with that stupid
copperweld steel field phone wire.


John Lundgren - Elec Tech - Info Tech Svcs  
Rancho Santiago Community College District  
17th St. at Bristol \ Santa Ana, CA 92706   
jlundgre@pop.rancho.cc.ca.us\jlundgre@kn.pacbell.com

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

From: wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 95 07:45:40 GMT 
Subject: Re: Five Digit Phone Numbers
 

Quoting Carl Moore <cmoore@ARL.MIL>:
  
> I am originallly from Wilmington, Delaware.  For many years, what
> became the {News-Journal} newspapers were on what became
> 302-654-5351. (Please don't call that number; it was changed long
> ago!)  Originally (and I had to read about this since I am too
> young to remember that far back) it would have been printed as
> "Wilmington 4-5351" or simply "4-5351" with Wilmington being
> understood; I believe you had to ask the operator if you wanted
> to reach such a number.

       Five-digit numbers were once quite common for dial service in
all but very large cities.  It wasn't that "Wilmington" was
understood; that was the whole telephone number, and it was in
Wilmington.  Since there all dialing was local, the concept of a name
or prefix didn't exist.  For long distance calls, you reached a long
distance operator, told her what city and what number you wanted, and
she plugged into either a ringdown or straightforward trunk to the
inward operator in that city, rang on it, if was a ringdown trunk, and
passed the number to the inward operator by voice when she answered.
The inward operator dialed the number (typically with a rotary dial on
the keyshelf) to connect with the desired number.  (If there were no
direct trunks to the called city, the operator had to go through other
cities on the way to get there; routes to popular destinations were on
a keyshelf bulletin; if not there, she connected to a rate and route
operator and inquired as to the route.)
 
> Does anyone remember when all the military bases around the USA
> had their own special arrangements?  Camp McCoy in Wisconsin, for
> example, was just 'Camp McCoy' to the long distance operator; it
> had four digit extensions but no actual 'main listed number'. It
> was just 'Camp McCoy, extension xxxx' via the long distance
> operator.  Ditto Fort Benjamin Harrison in southern Indiana and
> Great Lakes Naval Base.   PAT]
 
        The military bases were probably classified as exchanges for
toll purposes and so you reached them over a toll trunk, same as a
long distance call to any other exchange.  Military bases always had
special arrangements for connecting to both the exchange and toll
network and had their own operators (and switches, where the military
post had dial service).
 
        But talk of the newspaper in Wilmington and unusual
arrangements reminds me of the time when I was working for The Daily
Oklahoman in Oklahoma City (2-1211 and also L.D. 343; do you remember
toll terminals?) and I had occasion to call Phillips, Texas, about a
fire.
 
        Phillips was a company town of a Phillips Petroleum Company
subsidiary near Borger, Texas, where they had one or more chemical
plants.  I had the number in Phillips and I placed a call with the
long distance operator.
 
        She went to rate and route (see above) who gave her the
routing of "TC Borger" (toll center Borger).  So she connected with
Borger and asked for Phillips.  The inward operator responded "your
ticket reads Borger 666, a PBX."  So this was a case where it really
was a PBX with extension numbers.
 
        This was probably around 1949 or 1950.
 
 
Wes Leatherock                                            
wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu                       
wes.leatherock@f2001.n147.z1.fidonet.org                       


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This reminds me of when the operator in
North Bay, Ontario was the inward operator for all the little towns
northward along Imperial Highway 11, clear up to Hearst. When you 
called
any of those points, the long distance operator always got a report 
from
Rate and Route which indicated North Bay. So your operator dialed 
something
and presently there came a response over the wire "North Bay!" and 
your
operator would ask for the number in Hearst, for example, but the 
other


end would say 'just a minute, I will ring the operator in Hearst for
you
and you give her the number you want.' You'd hear this 'kerchunk' 
sound
as she was ringing, and sooner or later "Hearst" came on the line to 
ask
for 'number please?'. That is, unless you called after about 10 pm at
night ... call that late, and North Bay had a different answer for 
your
operator, who seemed astounded to hear such a thing:

"Is this an emergency call to Hearst, Ontario?"

(your operator would repeat the question to you, and you would say 
no.)

"Well operator, we are not supposed to ring her after ten o'clock at
night unless its an emergency. She goes to bed at ten. If it's an
emergency I will ring her, but we are not supposed to call until after
seven in the morning. Seven is when we give her a wake up call."

Then there was Alma, Quebec. Alma served as the inward for several
places in the far northern reaches of Quebec but connections were made
over *AM radio links*. Rate and Route would give your local operator 
the
notation 'other place' to mark on the ticket and a number to dial 
which
reached Alma Inward. If your operator thought it strange that the 
'phone
company' in Hearst closed down overnight, she thought it even stranger
when the operator in Alma answered, always first in French then 
immediatly
in English saying 'Alma Radio'. Your operator would ask for one of 
those 
places and the Alma operator would answer almost indignantly: "oooh!
madamoiselle! They are not going to answer me now! They only promise 
to
listen to zee radio between seven and nine oclock.  Do you want me to 
try
anyway? Maybe they will answer."  

So giving it a try, she would go on the radio circuit from her 
switchboard
and with sometimes horrible static in the background when she was not 
transmitting, she would try to raise them. First in French then in 
English
over and over, four or five times calling for whatever small village 
it
was 'this is Alma on Channel 1, do you copy me'.  Then she would go 
try on 
Channel 2.  Finally she would say there was no response from them, and
almost as an afterthought, 'madamoiselle, where are you calling from?'

The operator would tell her she was in Chicago. 

"Shee cah go? In zee United States? Operator, you call me back at 
seven
o'clock, I will see that they talk to you then."

Long ago times, indeed. That would have been in the middle 1950's.   
PAT]
  
------------------------------

Date: Tue, 31 Jan 95 15:40:17 EST
From: Tony Harminc <EL406045@BROWNVM.brown.edu>
Subject: Re: Old Phone Number Format Question


wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu wrote:

> Philips, the Netherlands company, was not very well known in
> the United States before World War II.  During World War II, after 
the
> Netherlands was occupied by Germany, their American operation became
> separate under the name North American Philips Company, which used 
the
> trade name Norelco.

Just to add another piece to the puzzle: in Canada the Norelco
trademark was not owned by Philips but by The Northern Electric
Company Ltd., which made radios, wire and cable, telephone equipment,
and even appliances like refrigerators.  Northern Electric was
majority owned by The Bell Telephone Company of Canada (now Bell
Canada), and was renamed Northern Telecom in the mid 1970s.  It is now
best known for its DMS switches and related telecom equipment.

In Canada, the Philips electric razors and such are sold under the
Philishave name.


Tony Harminc

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

From: jlundgre@kn.PacBell.COM (John Lundgren)
Subject: Re: Privately Owned Cables on Public Utility Poles
Date: 1 Feb 1995 03:04:52 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Knowledge Network


Mark Fletcher (mfletch@ix.netcom.com) wrote:

> I am the Communications Manager at a large Northeastern resort where
> my department maintains a Northern Telcom Meridian Option 71 with 
two
> Meridian Option 11's in remote sites. Here is my dilemma:

> Currently we lease about 100 pairs from the local RBOC at a cost of
> $15.50 each per month. These lines service locations about two miles
> apart down a State Highway, all in one municipality, and are used to
> connect the remote sitches.

> I have been told that we can apply to the local municipality for a
> utility franchise, and then place our own cables on existing poles. 
At
> our current cost of $18,000.00 annually for special circuits, this
> possibility is very attractive to us.

> If anyone has information about the process, or could point me to 
any
> pertinant legal documents on the subject, I would be very grateful.

> Please reply via direct e-mail to mfletch@ix.netcom.com. I will post 
my 
> findings and a summary for all interested.

It sounds like you have a good idea, if what you need is 100 pairs of 
hard 
copper.  Check the numbers and see how the costs look for a period of 
time, 
and you might be saving a lot real quick.

If you can use some groups of 24 circuits, then T-1 gear could be 
another 
answer to saving some money.  Or instead of running your own cable, 
you 
could run fiber instead.  Or radio gear could also eliminate the 
dependence 
on the telco altogether.

I would get one of the above and implement it, and not go completely
independent of the telco until I was sure that the fiber or radio was
going to be a reliable substitute.  Maybe keep 1/3 of the telco lines
just in case.


John Lundgren - Elec Tech - Info Tech Svcs   
Rancho Santiago Community College District   
17th St. at Bristol \ Santa Ana, CA 92706    
jlundgre@pop.rancho.cc.ca.us\jlundgre@kn.pacbell.com

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

From: pturner@netcom.com (Patton M Turner)
Subject: Re: Privately Owned Cables on Public Utility Poles
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 
guest)
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 03:17:26 GMT


You can rent space on the poles under conditions imposed by the PUC
and or City.  Usually the telco owns the poles, telco pays something
like 40 % of cost and the CATV firms 10%.  You only need a few inches
of space on the pole, but remember to consider maintainance costs and
restoration if the pole gets knocked down.  Also as a non-common
carrier you won't get the cooperation the telco gets if you have
inductive noise problems.

Have you thought of T1s or mucrowave?


Patton Turner  KB4GRZ  pturner@netcom.com  FAA Telecommunications

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

From: jlundgre@kn.PacBell.COM (John Lundgren)
Subject: Re: 500 Numbers and CID
Date: 31 Jan 1995 04:42:44 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Knowledge Network


Mark Stieger (stud@subzero.winternet.com) wrote:

> Here's something I haven't seen asked in here. When nationwide 
Caller
> ID is available, and someone calls you through a 500 number, will
> their CID information be passed, or will the 500 number (or some ATT
> number show up?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't know, and let's talk about it
[deleted]
> gets installed here. Meanwhile of course, AT&T promptly billed me 
for
> the service on January 24 -- on my local Ameritech bill -- so much 
for 
> how it is out of their control until Ameritech cooperates.    PAT]

I think here in Pac*Bell land, the Calif PUC requires that if the
subscriber had a loss of service greater than 24 hours, they can
remove the loss from their bill.  Like if the phone is out two days,
they can subtract 2/30 of a month's bill.  Of course, that doesn't
include other charges like toll calls.  So if you get service on the
30th, you might be able to get away without paying the loss between
the 24th and 30th.  I'm assuming that the regulatory laws are somewhat
uniform from state to state.


John Lundgren - Elec Tech - Info Tech Svcs 
Rancho Santiago Community College District 
17th St. at Bristol \ Santa Ana, CA 92706  
jlundgre@pop.rancho.cc.ca.us\jlundgre@kn.pacbell.com

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

Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 09:16:05 EST
From: Paul A. Migliorelli <paulmigs@netcom.com>
Subject: Last Laugh! Telecom and Pasta


Have any of you heard the Kraft macaroni and cheese ad with the little
child singing that he "wants the blue box", and that he has the "blue
box blues"?  Most interesting indeed.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #71
*****************************

                                                                                                                
