
From telecom-request@delta.eecs.nwu.edu  Thu Sep 21 15:24:53 1995
by
1995
15:24:53 -0400
telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 10:51:31 -0500
1995
10:51:28 -0500
To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 21 Sep 95 10:51:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 394

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Warning! Directory Assistance Imposter! (Lou Jahn)
    Re: Warning! Directory Assistance Imposter! (John Thompson)
    Re: Warning! Directory Assistance Imposter! (James G. Gorman)
    Re: Eliminate Dialing Weirdnesses - We Can Save Lives (James E. 
Bellaire)
    Re: Eliminate Dialing Weirdnesses - We Can Save Lives (John Levine)
    Re: Eliminate Dialing Weirdnesses - We Can Save Lives (Steve 
Cogorno)
    Re: Eliminate Dialing Weirdnesses - We Can Save Lives (Paul S. 
Sawyer)
    Re: Dialing 911 Instead of Police's 7D Number (Martin McCormick)
    Re: Dialing 911 Instead of Police's 7D Number (Stanley Ulbrych)

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: 500-677-1616
                        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.                                                 
*
************************************************************************
*

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in 
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft. 
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, 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.

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



In BKRON@NETCOM.COM's Spetmeber 19, 1995 Note-- He covered problems
with Directory Assistance (DA) service via MCI. He assumes that using
AT&T the caller is connected to Bell Operators. That is no longer the
case even with AT&T.

I've heard from reliable sources, that AT&T recently moved their
1-716-555-1212 traffic from NYNEX operators to an operator firm out in
Phoenix,AZ. All of a sudden Rochester Tel began to get complaints from
non-pub susbscribers asking why their telehpone number was being
released through DA service.

Guess what? It was not Rochester releasing them via 411 calls, but
AT&T via their 1-716-555-1212 operations. Apparently the operator
service AT&T now uses for 716-555-1212 (and their 1-900-555-1212) is
using a non-RBOC database which in part comes from credit, DMV, etc.
type records and includes normally non-pub numbers. However, people in
good faith put them on their driver or car registrations. Once these
are sold -- you are no longer non-pub.

This leads to several questions:

 1. If you contract for non-pub is with you local telephone company
and they refuse to sell/lease their database, is the alternate DA
service doing anything wrong in giving out your telephone number?

 2. As Local Telephone competition arises -- will LEC's share their
subscriber numbers with each other for 411 and directory purposes? You
must view this question from the new-LEC point of view -- if you spent
large sums of dollars to capture say 5,000 subsribers in any RBOC
territory, would your next step be to turn your success list over to
you major competition?

 A. If you think the many calls for your long distance business
is a problem -- add potential calls from LECs seeking to serve you.

        B. If you were in competition with a bunch of new-LECs wouldn't 
you desire to understand which marketing programs work to get people
to move off of your service (thus the new-LEC helps you market research 
for free giving you numbers)?

 3. If new LECs don't provide their numbers to a 411 service -- how do
you find a telephone number? Call each LEC? Years ago California had a
similar problem in the LA area between GTE and PacBell each having
about 50% market share -- they brought in a third party (Volt Delta
I think it was) to handle the directory publication to avoid the in
fighting (then just for Yellow Page advertising). DOes anyone
following the local competition trends see any PUCs looking toward
independent 411 services?

4. If local number portability takes off -- and you tell your RBOC
you're moving to the ABC LEC -- the enter a disconnect order removing
you from their DA service -- how long will it be before you get
reinserted by ABC if at all? Has anyone studied the potential impact
of portability on operator and DA services?

5. Bell Atlantic Mobile does not use Bell Atl (ROBC) DA services --
they have an alternate DA provider. Several BAM users tell me they get
poor DA service via BAM and it costs the Air time in addition to 411
costs. One friend received a large BAM usage credit after complaining
to the President abour their poor DA service (wrong three out of three
calls one day -- and couldn't find his own number which He's had over
25 years). So poor DA service is not limited to BKRON's experience
with MCI.

Lastly, AT&T and MCI have already opened markets for Alternate
Directory Assistance services via NPA-555-1212, 1-900-555-1212 and
1-800-GET-INFO.  One press article claimed a Bell Atlantic reduced
their DA operator force in the C&P region almost 20% dure to AT&T
moving their 703, 202 and 301 calls over to an outside operator
service.  Is this the start of total restructuring of the network's
Services and Support markets? If so who owns the accuracy 
responsiblities -- 
the FCC? They don't think so?

TIA for comments, 

Lou Jahn

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



In article <telecom15.388.9@eecs.nwu.edu>, bkron@netcom.com (BUBEYE!) 
wrote:

> WARNING!  Directory Assistance may be giving you bad information! 

> Usually, calls to 1-NPA-555-1212 (DA) get routed to an operator center
> owned and operated by one of the "Baby Bells" and they use telco-
compiled 
> data to search for your request.  This data is updated daily and is
> the most accurate information available.

> However, there has been a change recently involving interlata calls to 
DA. 
 
> If your default IEC is not AT&T, or you route your DA call over an IEC 
> other that AT&T, your DA call may actually be routed to a third-party 
DA 
> "boiler room" located in Missouri.  This company has been hired by MCI 
to 
> provide DA service to MCI and others for increasing numbers of areas 
of 
> the country. 

> Our experience with this operation is dismal.  We routinely get quoted
> the wrong telephone number or we get incorrect "not found" reports.
> They must use the same obsolete and innaccurate data that MCI used on
> their ill-fated CALL-INFO experiment.

I have used the 1-900-GET-INFO number, and have also had bad results.
My worst experience with them was when I tried to get the number for
MCI's New York City office.  I called five times to get the correct
number before I gave up.  I got all incorrect listings.  One number
was disconnected, another rang unanswered, another was a reorder tone,
and still another was another company named MCI.  Don't forget, this
was MCI I was calling for MCI's phone number!

My experience with AT&T's 1-900-555-1212 number has been much more
positive.  The DA operator I spoke to politely asked, "What city and
state, please?"  When he found no listing for the person I was
calling, he placed me on hold "while I check further."  (I assume he
was calling telco's DA).  It turns out that I asked for the wrong
city.

I think I'd rather pay AT&T's 75 cents for accurate information instead 
of 
MCI's 85 cents for outdated or otherwise inaccurate information.


John Thompson    thompson@interpage.net

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



Be careful about AT&T also.  I understand that they are considering
"taking back" their DA because they think the RBOC's charges are too
high.  This means getting telephone listings any way they can.

The shame is that without regulatory relief the RBOC's cannot allow
interlata calls to their DA operators even if the customer has no
other way to get there.  Even the use of 800 service provided by an
IXC is forbidden.


Jim


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What there *ought* to be is a single
directory assistance standard, or method of operation. All telcos would
supply their *published, listed* numbers to a database, and all who
wished to operate a DA service could do so, drawing their information
out of that database. The use of 555-1212 would be limited to a single
organization owned by all the telcos (something in the way Bellcore is
independent but all the telcos use their services). All telcos would
be required to cooperate with this agency or organization. The fee would
be established by tariff.   PAT]

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



In TD389, Dave Yost <DYost@Taurus.Apple.com> wrote:

> Our telephone systems should be straightforward enough that any child
> capable of remembering their phone number can be taught how to pick up
>  any phone and dial their home phone number or 911.

Nice thesis - I Agree.

[snip descriptions of dialing wierdness]

> Problems to be solved:

> Business and Hotel phones:
>    Business phones usually require you to dial 9 for an
>    outside line.  Hotels sometimes require 8.  There was
>    a time, back in the old pulse-dial days, when this
>    made some sense.  Now it doesn't.  PBX systems with
>    push-button phones could use the * or # key to access
>    internal dialing, and allow normal dialing to the
>    outside without a prefix.  We could require new
>    systems to offer this facility, and old ones could
>    be required to offer it as a software upgrade if
>    feasible.  (The phone system manufacturers should
>    welcome this revenue opportunity.)

No thanks.  I like being able to dial direct digits on inside calls.
* and # are used for accessing specific functions on PBXs (like remote
call pickup and direct trunck selection) so requiring all PBXs to
change would lose the availability of these features.

> Pay phones:
>    Pay phones are not child-friendly when you dial 1 +
>    area code + number without using the correct amount
>    of change.  They could be reprogrammed to say
>    something like this:

>    "Don't hang up.  Someone will come on the phone to
>    help you, or you can insert 20 cents (or whatever) to
>    connect your call automatically."

So far so good ...

>    Immediately and automatically, the called party
>    should be contacted with a recording that says
>    "Someone is trying to call you from a pay phone in
>    <city> without paying.  Say "yes" if you agree to pay
>    for the call." If callee has lost a child, they will
>    know what to do!  If not and they decline, then an
>    operator should talk with the person at the pay phone
>    and handle the situation, possibly initiating a
>    collect call with the name of the caller or
>    forwarding the call to 911.

Absolutly NOT.  I don't want some kid (or competitor with an attitude)
calling my phone for free from any payphone in the US/Canada however
wide you are making this.  If all I know is the city I won't know
until I pay who is calling.  And even if I refused to accept I still
get interrupted.

911 centers are going to love to get calls from citizens who have no
coins.  What is the number for 911?  911!  If you want 911 you should
dial it.

The operator option is acceptable, since they could offer transfers to
911 or a suitable authority, or accept a calling card for the call.
But then the phone would have to know not to require coins for this
connection.  I'll believe it when I see a COCOT do it!  The intercept
could be changed to add 'for help, dial 0 for an operator' as it is in
some areas.

> Calling from within the area code:
>    If you dial your own area code, you get a recording
>    saying you did something wrong.  This should be
>    reprogrammed so that such a call goes through as a
>    normal local call.

Absolutely.  All local calls should be connected and billed as local
calls regardless of 1+, NPA+, or 7D (where permitted) pattern used.
This would help travelers more than missing children since they would
not have to reprogram their pocket dialers (or minds) every time they
changed local calling areas.

>Special hookups for emergencies:
>    In the case of a lost or kidnapped child, a
>    subscriber should be able to request that a special
>    unblockable Caller ID logging unit be attached to
>    their line so that the police or FBI can trace a
>    relevant incoming call when alerted.

Available on a limited basis now (for prank calls mainly).  Just dial
a * something code and the number is logged.  Report the call to the
police or telephone company and they investigate (without telling you
the number).  Call-back * codes could also be used to store this
number in some switches.

> If we make these changes, then eventually even a very young child
> can be taught that in a jam, they can just "pick up any phone, dial
> our home telephone number, and we'll answer.  Even if you don't get to
> speak, it will help to know where you called from."

Train the child to dial 911.  Universal 911 is growing and should be
the most well known way to get help.  '0' is another option in areas
where 911 does not work.  (Including switchboards with an attendant.)
My nephews all know 'if you get lost and you need help dial 911'.

If PBX administrators would make 911 (as well as 9-911) work from any
phone it would be helpful too.  Not too many people would be
attempting to reach 9-1-1xx-xxx-xxxx numbers (unless they thought they
were dialing 011 for IDDD access).

> If you know the electronic or paper mail address of any group to whom
> I should send this idea, please tell me.  Some possibilities: missing
> children groups, telephony standards organizations, government
> regulators, lawmakers, ...?

Sounds like a good list, but give them a different message, to set a
'national policy on telephone dialing' that includes OPTIONAL 1+NPA
local dialing (billed as dialed local) and suggesting 911 be permitted
along side 9-911 where the PBX can handle it.

(All comments are based on the US telephone system.)


James E. Bellaire (JEB6)  bellaire@tk.com

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



>  * calling home or 911 from an office phone requiring 9+;
>  * calling home or 911 from a hotel room requiring 9+ or 8+ or worse;

Many PBXes are set up so that 9+11 turns into 911, since almost
nowhere does a useful number start with 11 (just some pulse
equivalents of *72 et al which are useless behind a PBX.)

>    Pay phones are not child-friendly when you dial 1 +
>    area code + number without using the correct amount
>    of change.  They could be reprogrammed to say
>    something like this:

>    "Don't hang up.  Someone will come on the phone to
>    help you, or you can insert 20 cents (or whatever) to
>    connect your call automatically."



                                                                                          

Oh, wow. All coin calls time out to auto-collect? I think not. It's
easy enough to teach the kid to dial 0+number and say "collect".

> Calling from within the area code:

>    If you dial your own area code, you get a recording
>    saying you did something wrong.  This should be
>    reprogrammed so that such a call goes through as a
>    normal local call.

This is only the case in states where short-sighted people have forced
the 1+ = toll nonsense. In New Jersey, the Land of Perfect Dialing,
this is how it's always worked, you can dial all calls with 11 digits
even within your own exchange and it handles them correctly. I believe
it's the case in most areas where you can dial all intra-NPA calls
with 7 digits.

> Special hookups for emergencies:

>    In the case of a lost or kidnapped child, a
>    subscriber should be able to request that a special
>    unblockable Caller ID logging unit be attached to
>    their line so that the police or FBI can trace a
>    relevant incoming call when alerted.

Call Trace serves this function now. It does what caller-ID is
frequently misrepresented as doing, collecting the calling number of a
call that you need to report to the cops.


Regards,

John R. Levine, Trumansburg NY
Primary perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies"
and Information Superhighwayman wanna-be

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



DYost@Taurus.Apple.com said:

> Problems to be solved:

> Business and Hotel phones:
> Pay phones:
> Calling from within the area code:
>     If you dial your own area code, you get a recording
>     saying you did something wrong.  This should be

Actually this is changing -- in most areas you CAN dial 1 plus the
area code (in your own area code) and still get through.

> Special hookups for emergencies:

>     In the case of a lost or kidnapped child, a
>     subscriber should be able to request that a special
>     unblockable Caller ID logging unit be attached to
>     their line so that the police or FBI can trace a
>     relevant incoming call when alerted.

This is also available as "Call Trace" from Pacific Bell.  Hang up,
dail the access code, and a report will be provided to the police.

As for the rest of the situation you mentioned, I see a far simpler
solution than changing the entire phone network:

Tell your child to dial "0" for Operator.  This should work
EVERYWHERE.  Payphones, homes, businesses will ring their private
operator, hotels will ring front desk, etc.  The child can say "Im
lost.  THis is my number XXX."  Don't you think it would be better for
a REAL person to handle the call instead of the possibility of the
child getting an answering machine or worse an intercept?  The
operator should be able to call emergency service if needed.

Far simpler, and probably more efficient.


Steve    cogorno@netcom.com

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



In article <telecom15.389.6@eecs.nwu.edu> DYost@Taurus.Apple.com (Dave
Yost) writes:

> Our telephone systems should be straightforward enough that any child
> capable of remembering their phone number can be taught how to pick up
> any phone and dial their home phone number or 911.

When I was five, we had such a system ... we did not have 911, and we
only had 4-digit (later 5) local dialing, no DDD, no area codes ...
but we could dial (rotary) one digit...  "Dial 0 and say 'I need help'
if you ever need help," my parents told me.  And they told me when
THEY were young, you could skip the "Dial 0" step!


Paul S. Sawyer                         Paul.Sawyer@UNH.edu
UNH Telecommunications              Voice: +1 603 862 3262
50 College Road                       FAX: +1 603 862 4545
Durham, New Hampshire  03824-3523

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

Down


In article <telecom15.390.4@eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Editor noted:

> You pulled open the little trap door and yanked down a lever. A spring-
> wound mechanism inside started doing whatever, and the firemen got the 
> signal in their station.

 What happened was something that dates back to the 1840's.
The spring-wound mechanism was probably much like that of a music box.
As the spring unwound, a wheel with notches cut in to it rotated past
a switch.  The notches were cut so that a code was sent via telegraph
wires to the central fire station.  The mechanism probably had a
governor of some kind to make sure that the speed was fairly constant
as the spring unwound.

 A book about the history of fire fighting in the United States
credits the city of Boston with having the first alarm box system in
the 1840's.  When you take in to account that the Morse telegraph
wasn't invented until the early 1840's, this was comparable to one of
today's cities installing fiber optic ATM links to all the buildings
in the downtown area.

 The officials who installed this system anticipated malicious
alarms and made one very big mistake.  They locked the alarm boxes and
left the keys to them at nearby homes or businesses so that one had to
first get somebody in one of those places to bring out the key to send
in the alarm.

 I have never been to Boston, but their fire department used
radio frequencies that sometimes propagate in to Oklahoma.  I noticed
that they had their street boxes tied directly in to the radio system
so that when somebody pulled a box, one would hear a long tone to get
everyone's attention followed by the box number pulsed out much like a
very slow rotary dial telephone.  I seem to remember that the beeps
were about three or four per second so a person could easily count
them to determine the number.

 After a couple of repeats, the human dispatcher would confirm
the box number and make sure that the correct engines were heading for
the fire.

 The alarm boxes vanished from streets in Tulsa and Oklahoma
City as well as many other places as soon as 911 became the method of
choice to report emergencies.  I also remember that many of the street
boxes had a glass window that one had to break with an attached hammer
to activate the alarm.  This always seemed dumb and dangerous to me,
but I am sure there was a good reason for it.


Martin McCormick WB5AGZ  Stillwater, OK 36.7N97.4W
OSU Center for Computing and Information Services Data Communications 
Group

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

4600


> We have an almost identical situation here in Vancouver, BC.  Upon
> calling the administrative 7D number listed in the phone book, we are
> generally referred to the 911 number instead, the resaon stated is
> that they cannot connect you anyhwere from the 7D number.  I have a

I work as a volunteer in the emgerency room of the Providence Rhode 
Island hospital. A family member of a patient had to contact the East 
Providence Police (a seperate city, bordering on Providence).

I looked up the number in a phone book on my desk, gave it to the
family. The husband comes back upset, saying he can't get through.
Turns out the local number for the police had been changed last year.
The recording simply stated that "the number you dial is no longer
working. See your directory for the new number."

Turns out I was using an old telephone book. But even so, I would have
thought some other message should have stated the number is now
xxx-xxxx. Or am I asking for too much in life??


stan@enest.com [Internet]    401-437-9448 (FAX)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For the past six months or so, 
Ameritech's
business office has been on a daytime only schedule. They used to have
people there around the clock to take calls. The monthly phone bill 
*still*
says 'you can reach us 24 hours per day at 800-244-4444'.  What one area
of telco is doing seldom seems to get known in other areas for a long 
time.

You'd think also they might have intercepted that number with a live 
operator
who then connected it to the proper police department, but they probably
did not think of that either.     PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #394
******************************

                                                                                               
