TELECOM Digest     Thu, 2 Jun 94 09:29:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 265

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    TAP-INFO Memo to NSF on Internet Access (Bill Blum)
    716 Now Split Between 7D and 1 + 716 + 7D (Scott D. Fybush)
    OSP's Aren't the Only Ones (A. Padgett Peterson)
    Question About OO-CHILL (Hwan Wook Sohn)
    Internet Through Local Cable TV Provider (Jeff Lin)
    Telephone Switch Vendors - Read This (Scott Sanbeg)
    Does MCI Transmit CNID? (Eric R. Sandeen)
    Interactive "Voice Mail" System For PC? (Paul A. Lee)
    Re: Rude Not to Leave Answering Machine Messages? (Robert Casey)
    Re: E911 Portland OR Has Problems (Robert Casey)
    Re: 800 Number Billback (Paul S. Sawyer)
    Re: Micro Portable Suggestions (Steve Wood)
    Re: Cost of Caller ID in PA (Stephen Denny)

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

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 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.

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: Wed, 01 Jun 94 16:44:48 EDT
From: Bill Blum <BASTILLE@GAES.GRIFFIN.PEACHNET.EDU>
Subject: TAP-INFO Memo to NSF on Internet Access


 Subject: Metered Usage of the Internet: JSN

In the future, you might have to pay a charge for every E-mail message
you send or receive, every Usenet article you read, every kilobyte of
data you transfer with ftp, every hypertext link you follow with NCSA
Mosaic or Gopher ...

Hopefully this frightens you as much as it does me.  But it will
happen, unless YOU do something about it.

Please read the attached, fill out the requested info, and mail it
back to mike@essential.org.  It also wouldn't hurt to forward a copy
of this to everyone you know on the Internet.

Thanks for your support.

Craig Smith, <bcs@cs.tamu.edu  or <craig@stat.tamu.edu
Texas A&M University, Dept. of Computer Science
205 HRBB, 862-2084 (CPSC).


 TAXPAYER ASSETS PROJECT - INFORMATION POLICY NOTE
 May 7, 1994

 -    Request for signatures for a letter to NSF opposing metered
      pricing of Internet usage

 -    Please repost this request freely

The letter will be sent to Steve Wolff, the Director of Networking and
Communications for NSF.  The purpose of the letter is to express a
number of user concerns about the future of Internet pricing.  NSF
recently announced that it is awarding five key contracts to telephone
companies to operate four Internet "Network Access Points" (NAPs), and
an NSF funded very high speed backbone (vBNS).  There have been a
number of indications that the telephone companies operating the NAPs
will seek permission from NSF to price NAPs services according to some
measure of Internet usage.  The vBNS is expected to act as a testbed
for new Internet pricing and accounting schemes.  The letter expresses
the view that metered pricing of Internet usage should be avoided, and
that NSF should ensure that the free flow of information through
Internet listserves and file server sites is preserved and enhanced.

Jamie Love, Taxpayer Assets Project (love@essential.org; but unable to
answer mail until May 15).  Until then, direct inquires to Michael
Ward.

If you are willing to sign the letter, send the following information
to Mike Ward of the Taxpayer Assets Project (mike@essential.org, fax:
202/234-5176; voice: 202/387-8030; P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC
20036):

Names:    ___________________________
Title:    ___________________________   (Optional)
Affiliation:   ____________________________________
(for purposes of identification only)
Address:       ______________________________________
City; St, Zip  ________________________________
Email Address: _____________________________________
Voice:         __________________________________
(for verification)

                            The letter follows:

Steve Wolff
Director
Division of Networking and Communications
National Science Foundation
1800 G Street
Washington, DC  20550

Dear Steve:

It is our understanding that the National Science Foundation (NSF) and
other federal agencies are developing a new architecture for the
Internet that will utilize four new Network Access Points (NAPs),
which have been described as the new "cloverleaves" for the Internet.
You have indicated that NSF is awarding contracts for four NAPs, which
will be operated by telephone companies (Pac Bell, S.F.; Ameritech,
Chicago; Sprint, NY; and MFS, Washington, DC).  We further understand
that NSF has selected MCI to operate its new very high speed backbone
(vBNS) facility.

There is broad public interest in the outcome of the negotiations
between NSF and the companies that will operate the NAPs and vBNS.  We
are writing to ask that NSF consider the following objectives in its
negotiations with these five firms:

      PRICING.

We are concerned about the future pricing systems for Internet access
and usage.  Many users pay fixed rates for Internet connections, often
based upon the bandwidth of the connection, and do not pay for network
usage, such as the transfer of data using email, ftp, Gopher or
Mosaic.  It has been widely reported on certain Internet discussion
groups, such as com-priv, that the operators of the NAPs are
contemplating a system of usage based pricing.

We are very concerned about any movement toward usage based pricing on
the Internet, and we are particularly concerned about the future of
the Internet Listserves, which allow broad democratic discourse on a
wide range of issues.  We believe that the continued existence and
enhancement of the Internet discussion groups and distribution lists
is so important that any pricing scheme for the NAPs that would
endanger or restrict their use should be rejected by the NSF.

It is important for NSF to recognize that the Internet is more than a
network for scientific researchers or commercial transactions.  It
represents the most important new effort to expand democracy into a
wide range of human endeavors.  The open communication and the free
flow of information have make government and private organizations
more accountable, and allowed citizens to organize and debate the
widest range of matters.  Federal policy should be directed at
expanding public access to the Internet, and it should reject efforts
to introduce pricing schemes for Internet usage that would mimic
commercial telephone networks or expensive private network services
such as MCI mail.

To put this into perspective, NSF officials must consider how any
pricing mechanisms will change the economics of hosting an Internet
electronic mail discussion groups and distribution lists.  Many of
these discussion groups and lists are very large, such as Humanist,
GIS-L, CNI-Copyright, PACS-L, CPSR-Announce or Com-Priv.  It is not
unusual for a popular Internet discussion group to have several
thousand members, and send out more than 100,000 email messages per
day.  These discussion groups and distribution lists are the backbones
of democratic discourse on the Internet, and it is doubtful that they
would survive if metered pricing of electronic mail is introduced on
the Internet.

Usage based pricing would also introduce a wide range of problems
regarding the use of ftp, gopher and mosaic servers, since it
conceivable that the persons who provide "free" information on servers
would be asked to pay the costs of "sending" data to persons who
request data.  This would vastly increase the costs of operating a
server site, and would likely eliminate many sources of data now
"published" for free.

We are also concerned about the types of accounting mechanisms which
may be developed or deployed to facilitate usage based pricing
schemes., which raise a number of concerns about personal privacy.
Few Internet users are anxious to see a new system of "surveillance"
that will allow the government or private data vendors to monitor and
track individual usage of Information obtained from Internet
listserves or fileserves.

      ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES

We are also concerned about the potential for anti- competitive
behavior by the firms that operate the NAPs.  Since 1991 there have
been a number of criticisms of ANS pricing practices, and concerns
about issues such as price discrimination or preferential treatment
are likely to become more important as the firms operating the NAPs
become competitors of firms that must connect to the NAPs.  We are
particularly concerned about the announcements by PAC-Bell and
Ameritech that they will enter the retail market for Internet
services, since both firms were selected by NSF to operate NAPs.  It
is essential that the contracts signed by NSF include the strongest
possible measures to insure that the operators of the NAPs do not
unfairly discriminate against unaffiliated companies.

Recommendations:

As the Internet moves from the realm of the research community to a
more vital part of the nation's information infrastructure, the NSF
must ensure that its decisions reflect the needs and values of a much
larger community.

 1.   The NSF contracts with the NAPs operators will include
      clauses that determine how the NAP services will be priced.
      It is important that NSF disclose and receive comment on all
      pricing proposals before they become final.  NSF should
      create an online discussion list to facilitate public dialog
      on the pricing proposals, and NSF should identify its
      criteria for selecting a particular pricing mechanism,
      addressing the issue of how the pricing system will impact
      the Internet's role in facilitating democratic debate.

 2.   NSF should create a consumer advisory board which would
      include a broad cross section of consumer interests,
      including independent network service providers (NSPs),
      publishers of Internet discussion groups and distribution
      lists, academic networks, librarians, citizen groups and
      individual users.  This advisory board should review a
      number of policy questions related to the operation of the
      Internet, including questions such as the NAP pricing, NAP
      operator disclosure of financial, technical and operational
      data, systems of Internet accounting which are being tested
      on the vBNS and other topics.

 3.   NSF should solicit public comment, though an online
      discussion group, of the types of safeguards against
      anticompetitive behavior by the NAPs which should be
      addressed in the NSF/NAPs contracts, and on issues such as
      NAPs pricing and Internet accounting systems.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 TAP-INFO is an Internet Distribution List provided by the Taxpayer
 Assets Project (TAP).  TAP was founded by Ralph Nader to monitor the
 management of government property, including information systems and
 data, government funded R&D, spectrum allocation and other government
 assets.  TAP-INFO reports on TAP activities relating to federal
 information policy.  tap-info is archived at ftp.cpsr.org;
 gopher.cpsr.org and wais.cpsr.org

 Subscription requests to tap-info to listserver@essential.org with
 the message:  subscribe tap-info your name
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Taxpayer Assets Project; P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC  20036
 v. 202/387-8030; f. 202/234-5176; internet:  tap@essential.org
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

 PLEASE FORWARD TO OTHER DISCUSSION FORUMS YOU MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH

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

From: fybush@world.std.com (Scott D Fybush)
Subject: 716 Now Split Between 7D and 1 + 716 + 7D
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 23:54:25 EDT


NYNEX/NY announced today that its portion of 716 in Western NY will
use 1 + 716 + 7D for LD within the area code.  This is apparently a
change from the previously-announced 7D dialing.

It is also in conflict with the Rochester Tel half of 716, which as
far as I know is sticking with 7D.  So now Buffalo will need to dial
1+ 716 to get to Rochester, while Rochester only has to dial 7D to get
to Buffalo.  I hope RochTel will support 1 + 716 as well, just to ease
the confusion as people cross from NYNEX's Buffalo LATA to the
Rochester Telephone LATA.

Are any other NPAs split in dialing methods like this?

Also, today was phase-in day for 1 + 413 dialing in Western MA.
NYNEX/NE will phase in 1 + 508 and 1 + 617 in mid-July, and all three
will be mandatory in September.  This replaces the earlier plan for
7D, which was quashed by the DPU.


Scott Fybush - fybush@world.std.com

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

Date: Thu, 2 Jun 94 08:08:27 -0400
From: padgett@tccslr.dnet.mmc.com (A. Padgett Peterson)
Subject: OSP's Aren't the Only Ones


Last week I had occasion to visit Curacao in the Netherland Antilles,
about two hours flight from Miami (guesstimate, was not able to go
direct and the first plane I got on had propellors).

Previously, I had commented that the U$1.58/minute my Sprint service
charged for an earlier call to the island seemed high (compared to
London at three times the distance for half the charge) but the rate
from the Hotel (using ATT Direct) was U$10.28 for three minutes (USA
was broken into three zones & Florida was lowest).

A calling card purchased outside the hotel and used to dial direct was
U$2.00 per minute. Hapily, that phone (Phillips) had a volume control 8*).

It is going to be interesting to see what happens when the Motorola
Satellite telephone system (Meridian ?) becomes available worldwide.
Will it have any way to pinpoint exactly which country the signal is
coming from or will customs officers in lands with government mandated
monopolies confiscate sat-phones?

The coming global communications structure is going to injure a lot of
sacred cows and it will be interesting to see how they react (was the
Post Office directive earlier a first step towards requiring a stamp
for E-Mail ?)


Warmly,

Padgett

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

From: sohn@cse.uta.edu (Hwan Wook Sohn)
Subject: Question About OO-CHILL
Organization: Computer Science Engineering at the Univ of Texas at Arlington
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1994 00:22:28 GMT


Hello everybody,

I am studying CHILL language which is a special computer language for
telecommunication applications and I want to know more about Object
Oriented CHILL(so called OO-CHILL).

I found some papers related to OO-CHILL. However, they are all talking
about their concepts and implementation issues (they were under developing). 
I guess the OO-Chill maybe developed somewhere now. But I am not sure.

Is there anybody who knows current status of OO-CHILL language?  Are
there some fully developed commertial OO-CHILLs?  If you know about
the status of OO-CHILL, some information or references, please let us
know.  I also want to know about the Object Oriented SDL (System
Description Language).


Thanks in advance,

Name    : Sohn, Hwan Wook         E-Mail  : sohn@cse.uta.edu
Phone   : 817-794-5134            Fax     : 817-273-3784
Address : 416 Yates
          CSE Dept. UTABOX-19015
          Arlington, TX 76019

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

Date: Wed, 1 Jun 94 17:25:02 CDT
From: linj@Texaco.COM (Jeff Lin)
Subject: Internet Through Local Cable TV Provider


Hi,

Is it possible to get Internet connectivity through a local cable TV
provider? Has any cable TV provider around the country started (or
planned) this kind of service?
  
If this is possible, how does the bandwidth privided by a typical
local cable TV media compare with T1 and other media types?

Any ideas or information is welcome.


Jeff Lin     linj@Texaco.com    (713)975-4592

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

From: ssanbeg@hebron.connected.com (Scott Sanbeg)
Subject: Telephone Switch Vendors - Read This
Date: 1 Jun 1994 15:32:27 -0700
Organization: Connected INC -- Full Service Internet Providers(tm)


We are beginning a research project into switching in a call-center
environment and are inviting switch vendors to contact us. Our
environment is fiber and of interest to us are other, fiber products.


Scott Sanbeg
Kelley's Personal Communications, Seattle, WA
(206) 682-1111 x131
Computer Systems Engineer, Seattle, WA
ssanbeg@hebron.connected.com

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

From: sandeen@kazoo.cecer.army.mil (Eric R Sandeen)
Subject: Does MCI Transmit CNID?
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 15:30:32
Organization: USA CERL


Does MCI transmit CNID?

I call from Champaign (IL) to Austin via MCI, and in Austin it says
"out of area."  Anyone else have this problem?


Eric Sandeen   USA CERL       
sandeen@kazoo.cecer.army.mil
http://kazoo.cecer.army.mil/~sandeen/eric.html


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is not just MCI. I don't think any long
distance carrier at the present time would provide the CLID between those
points.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue 31 May 1994 00:00:00 GMT
From: Paul A. Lee  </DD.ID=JES2CAOF.UEDCM09/@SMX.sprint.com>
Organization: Woolworth Corporation
Subject: Interactive "Voice Mail" System For PC? 
 
 
In {TELECOM Digest} Volume 14 Issue 257, Axel Cleeremans wrote:
 
> A friend of mine would like to set up an interactive voice-mail
> system based on a PC ... is ... there ... a hardware device that will
> perform these functions ... when hooked up to or put inside a PC.
 
The basic hardware device that meets these requirements is typically
referred to as a "voice board" or a "voice port board". Most such
boards contain a telephone line interface, a telephone-bandwidth audio
signal coder/decoder (CODEC), and a DTMF (touch tone)
receiver-decoder, for one or more ports, and sometimes an external
audio interface and foreplane interfaces to adjunct boards.
 
Following are some North America-based manufacturers of such boards;
many of these companies also make European versions and have European
sales and support operations:
 
     Dialogic                         +1 201 334 8450
     Brooktrout                       +1 617 449 4100
     New Voice                        +1 703 448 0570
     Rhetorex                         +1 408 370 0881
     Natural MicroSystems             +1 508 650 1300
     SpeechSoft                       +1 609 466 1100
     Pika Technologies                +1 613 591 1555
 
Each of these manufacturers provides some degree of software support,
from basic hardware drivers and development kits, to more sophisticated 
voice mail or IVR (interactive voice response) applications. The
manufacturers can also refer you to developers and system integrators
using their hardware.
 
A typical voice port board will cost from US$500 to US$1500. A typical
four port voice response system, including the PC and application
software, ready to be loaded with your data and programmed for your
application, will cost between US$5000 and US$10000. There are
thousands of companies (and individuals) writing applications and
assembling systems based on voice boards and PCs. You will have to do
quite a bit of shopping to find the best product for your needs at the
best price.
 
You may also be able to adapt one of the "shrink-wrapped" single port
voice mail/modem boards to your application. National Semiconductor,
Intel, and Boca Research are among the US manufacturers, and there are
certainly others.  Check with a full-line PC communications products
dealer in your part of the world. These devices should cost under
US$800 -- some as low as US$200.


Paul A. Lee                    Voice  +1 414 357-1409
Telecommunications Analyst       FAX  +1 414 357-1450
Woolworth Corporation           CompuServe  70353,566
INTERNET  </DD.ID=JES2CAOF.UEDCM09/@SMX.sprint.com>

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

From: wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey)
Subject: Re: Rude Not to Leave Answering Machine Messages?
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login:
guest)
Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 17:09:12 GMT


In article <telecom14.253.11@eecs.nwu.edu> J.Harrison@bra0112.wins.icl.co.
uk writes:

> General view of Digest readers (except Miss Manners) seems to be that
> it is, on the basis that it leaves the called party with a gnawing
> feeling of wonderment as to who called them and why. I can't see how;
> do modern answering machines work differently from my fairly-old
> Panasonic?

> With mine, callers who hear the outgoing message all the way through
> and then hang up (before the beep) just don't activate the message
> counter, so I don't even know they called. The few seconds gap between
> the end of the outgoing message and the beep gives them plenty of
> time. Suits me fine, and I had assumed they all worked much the same
> way.

My answering machine (a Code-a-phone) puts short beeps to indicate
that someone called but left no message.  Sometimes, when I'm trying
to reach someone to actually talk with, I'll get their machine several
times before they're there, so I don't leave a message each time (why
waste the tape on their machine?).  Except for one friend who gets
annoyed if I don't leave a message every time, then I'll leave a short
message.  Other times, I just called to say the equivalent of "Hey,
how's it goin'", in which case, a message on the machine is somewhat
pointless.

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

From: wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey)
Subject: E911 Portland OR Has Problems
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login:
guest)
Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 17:20:42 GMT


Read in the local paper (Oregonian) last week about how Portland's 911
system has some serious problems and poor morale.  Mentioned about the
Fire Department didn't like the use of "civilians" for the 911 call
takers, and that they didn't like having to deal with some elements of
the police methods. (Note: I'm not familiar with the details of such
work).

Portland installed new 911 equipment a few months ago, (same stuff
that San Diego, CA has, according to the paper) and has had many
problems.  People on hold for like 15 minutes on 911.  Wrong locations
given to ambulances and such.

Portland got rid of their old emergency director, and appointed a new
one.

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

From: paul@senex.unh.edu (Paul S. Sawyer)
Subject: Re: 800 Number Billback
Date: 31 May 1994 19:31:56 GMT
Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: [...]  Add to that requiring PINS
> on outgoing 'long distance' calls -- even 800 numbers -- for the purpose
> of identifying who made what calls, and your trouble should be greatly
> reduced if not eliminated entirely. PAT]

There is no problem identifying "who made what calls" -- but the way
they are billed usually has no relation to how they are made.  The
dialed number looks nothing like the billed number, the time and
length may not match, and misleading terms like "credit card" and
"collect call" appear when the only call is an outgoing 800- call.

We don't need to require authorization codes for 800 - numbers, since
we can bill to the extension for such calls, and to "punish" the users
of legitimate 800- numbers by having them dial extra digits would not
be favorably met by our customers.  Most of these bogus charges can be
tracked and/or denied, but the problem is definitely bigger than it
needs to be.


Paul S. Sawyer    - University of New Hampshire CIS -  Paul.Sawyer@UNH.Edu
Telecommunications and Network Services                VOX: +1 603 862 3262
50 College Road                                        FAX: +1 603 862 2030
Durham, New Hampshire  03824-3523


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, another solution is sort of rough and
dirty, but it would work. How many outgoing trunks do you have that those
800 calls would be routed on?  If you have some way to insure that calls
to 800 numbers get routed over some minimum number of trunks, and always
the same trunks then get some el-cheapo call restrictors and add them to
those outgoing lines. For example, Radio Shack has some nifty little units
which allow restricting specific numbers, local or long distance. I think
maybe you can program up to 30 numbers you don't want dialed in them. Get
one for each outgoing trunk handling 800 calls, and again, if you can fix
things so the 'toll-free' calls are all wedged into a group of maybe a
half-dozen to a dozen trunks you will minimize your expense. Get as many
of the toll restrictors as needed. Load them with the dozen or two dozen
most commonly (ab)used 800 numbers, as noted in your personal copy of
{Rolling Stone} and/or {Penthouse} magazine. No one else will even see
the difference, but boy, will those kids trying to reach the selected
800 numbers be frustrated! :). They'll dial those numbers, your switch
will process normally and send them out on the appropriate trunks. The
toll restrictors will see them coming and dump them. Your users hear
dial tone, click, click, clunk!  Dead line, switch dial tone returned 
to them. Total investment, maybe a thousand dollars for several toll
restrictors. Start by loading them with the 800 numbers you have been
able to match up from your last couple phone bills. Each time you get
your phone bill for a couple months, add the newest discoveries. You
watch ... after two or three months it will drop to zero or almost zero.

The best part of all will be the nitwits who come to you to report that
their phone (or your lines) must be 'out of order'. <grin> ... you will
innocently ask them what number they were attempting to reach so that 
you can investigate the problem ... they'll tell you (or if they have
a few brains they will try to avoid telling you the exact number) and
you'll clean them out right on the spot. <grin> ...  PAT]

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

From: Steve Wood <steve.wood@mccaw.com>
Subject: Re: Micro Portable Suggestions
Date: Tue, 31 May 94 14:11:00 PDT


Bill Verry writes:

> I'm in the market for a micro portable cell phone and need some
> advice. From what I've gathered it seems these devices are not too
> reliable when it comes to clarity and battery life. Most everyone I've
> spoken to has suggested I stay with the car phone and forget the
> "pocket" phone. I suspect this has to do with the low ouput of the
> units? If there is a manufacturer or a particular type of phone I
> should get I would greatly appreciate such contrasting opinion.

I suggest getting a portable with a hands-free adaptor kit for the
car. At McCaw I get to try out lots of phones, and that is the setup I
use. I've got a Motorola digital flip phone with the hands-free kit.
Most car kits offer a three watt amplifier for use in the car, so you
get the best of both worlds.


Steve Wood (steve.wood@mccaw.com)

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

From: sdenny@spd.dsccc.com (Stephen Denny)
Subject: Re: Cost of Caller ID in PA
Date: 1 Jun 1994 03:55:31 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corporation, Plano, Texas USA


In article <telecom14.259.10@eecs.nwu.edu>, Greg Vaeth at Jerrold
Communications <gvaeth@netcom.com> wrote:

> An insert in my latest bill contained a notice that Bell Atlantic will
> offer Caller ID in Pennsylvania in August.  The cost for residential
> customers is $6.50/month, business is $8.50.  Call blocking and
> anonymous call rejection are free.  This charge seem outrageous
> considering that the equipment to do it is already there, right?  How
> else does return call, repeat call and all that stuff work. How does
> this rate compare to other states?

I can't remember the exact Southwestern Bell charges for Caller ID but
they were in the same range for Caller ID number, perhaps more to
include the Caller ID name.  I'd love to have it, but I don't know if
it's worth that much to me.

As far as the equipment, I can't really speak for the Central Office
equipment, but assuming the info is to be carried via SS7 (as the
number is now), adding a name look-up adds a significant load to the
SS7 signaling network, if this is to be done for most every call.  To
support this additional load, I would expect the regionals as well as
long distance carriers to add additional SS7 links, processing
capacity and database lookup support (which may be billed by a
separate supplier).  This additional SS7 capacity *don't come cheap*.


Stephen Denny             sdenny@spd.dsccc.com
DSC Communications Corp. 
Plano, TX                 **Standard Disclaimer**

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #265
******************************

