
From telecom-request@delta.eecs.nwu.edu  Tue Oct  3 22:42:28 1995
by
1995
22:42:28 -0400
telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 18:14:04 -0500
1995
18:14:01 -0500
To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 3 Oct 95 18:14:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 415

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Pac*Bell Lied, Do I Have Any Options? (Karen Jensen)
    Re: Pac*Bell Lied, Do I Have Any Options? (Bill Fenner)
    Re: Pac*Bell Lied, Do I Have Any Options? (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: Pac*Bell Lied, Do I Have Any Options? (Chris Mayer)
    Re: Pac*Bell Lied, Do I Have Any Options? (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: Pac*Bell Lied, Do I Have Any Options? (John Higdon)
    Re: Eliminate Dialing Weirdnesses - We Can Save Lives (Toby Nixon)
    Re: Eliminate Dialing Weirdnesses - We Can Save Lives (Mike Morris)
    Re: Eliminate Dialing Weirdnesses - We Can Save Lives (Dave 
Levenson)
    Re: Eliminate Dialing Weirdnesses - We Can Save Lives (Steve 
Cogorno)
    Re: Eliminate Dialing Weirdnesses - We Can Save Lives (Ed Ellers)
    Re: Eliminate Dialing Weirdnesses - We Can Save Lives (Dave Yost)
    Re: Eliminate Dialing Weirdnesses - We Can Save Lives (Wes 
Leatherock)
    Re: Help! I've Been Slammed by WilTel! (M. Troutman)
    Re: Unabomber Full Text Now in Archives (Scot E. Wilcoxon)

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 <telecom15.410.3@eecs.nwu.edu> chris@ivanova.punk.net (Christopher
Ambler) writes: 

> We have 26 lines (residential POTS) and 1 ISDN line into our house. 
(For
> the curious, we have an internet cooperative amongst 20 people, ISDN
> carries internet to my house, and then 20 modems take it all over town
> to the members).

> Pac*Bell told us, when we ordered our last three lines, that we could
> only have one of them, and that we were then maxxed out. Their story
> is that we've used all the pairs up my street save for the spares to
> each other house (for which I've heard anywhere from one to five pairs
> per house).

> I called "Home Office" on Monday to enquire as to the cost to get two
> more lines. I told them that engineering had told me no more unless I
> pay for trenching, etc. The lady told me, "Well, there are nine pairs
> to your area available, and three available to your house." I found
> this hard to believe, but decided to test it, and ordered a line
> (POTS/res/meas). She assigned me a number and a date for install.

> Today (a day before the install date), an engineer came out and was
> rather rude with me, telling me that there's been a block placed on my
> address, such that we can have no more lines. He said we can pay
> upwards of $10,000 (ten thousand dollars!) to have the area rewired.
 
> But I got a firm commitment from the business office ...

> Do I have any recourse here? We need more lines, and this is getting
> very frustrating.

Maybe you can get a T1 in to your house. It only takes two pairs. Pac
Bell installed mine for free for our business. You may need to pay a
move charge to move your existing trunks to the span. Maybe they would
wave the move charges to get 18 of your existing pairs. I have a used
channel bank for sale. 

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



In article <telecom15.410.3@eecs.nwu.edu>,
Christopher Ambler <chris@ivanova.punk.net> wrote:

> Their story is that we've used all the pairs up my street save for
> the spares to each other house (for which I've heard anywhere from one
> to five pairs per house).

We had a similar problem; when we moved in, PAC*Bell said that we only
had four pairs available for our house; we wanted three POTS and two
ISDN lines.  They ended up putting a box they call a DAML on one of
the pairs, which gives you two POTS lines over one pair.  Apparently, it
uses a 2B1Q physical layer just like ISDN, and apparently does the
A<>D, dialtone generation, tone recognition, etc. in the garage.

We are using the two POTS lines both for modem lines, and although the
S/N ratio dropped a couple of dB when switching from a fully analog
line to one of these DAML'd lines, we don't have any connection
problems because of it.

So, perhaps you can get them to put these DAML boxes on some of your
pairs and double the number of POTS lines into your house.


Bill

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



I supprised PacBell doesn't just put a slick in you basement (or in
your front yard :-)).  If you are getting ISDN you are 18,000 feet or
less from either the CO or SLC.  It seems it would behove them to get
rid of the bridge taps, splice in a pair of span repeaters, and the
ISDN line should carry a T span (with a second pair).  Then they can
feed you the ISDN line with a BRITE card.  Of course you many not want
a SLC in your bedroom, but it is the ultimate sign of computer
geekdom.

Let me guess though, your fellow coop members dial in close to 24 hrs a 
day, only hanging up when the carrier is lost.  I bet PacBells attitude 
has something to do with this.


Pat

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




> And by the way, co-operative or not, you should be paying for business
> service. You can't argue "we're non profit"... so is the Red Cross and
> they pay for the proper service.

  Unless I read wrong, he is operating out of his home, and if so,
Pacific Bell has a special program called "Cottage Industries" for
home businesses.  A rep told me that there would be no problem with
bringing in additional lines on the residential rate, although the
only drawback is that you don't get any business line pluses such as a
line in the yellow pages and a line in the business white pages.


IncidentNet(tm) - Fire, Police and EMS Information Services
Chris Mayer, Owner     National ID: (Net/3500)

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



chris@ivanova.punk.net (Christopher Ambler) wrote:

> We have 26 lines (residential POTS) and 1 ISDN line into our house. 
(For
> the curious, we have an internet cooperative amongst 20 people, ISDN
> carries internet to my house, and then 20 modems take it all over town
> to the members).

I have to admit that while I consider myself a respectable telco
basher, my sympathies are with PacBell here.  I realize that some BBSs
can use residence service, and an Internet coop running from a house
and NOT charging money can use residence service by the same standard,
but let's not get carried away.

We had a case in Cambridge a few years ago.  Channel 1 began as a
residential BBS, but grew to dozens of lines.  It was really kludgey;
they had dozens of PCs on shelves with separate modems and everything,
working out of a tiny house on a back street.  The city made them move
it to a commercial zone.  Last time I looked, they were in the same
building as Delphi Internet, but the latter is moving to larger
quarters in Lowell.

Anyway, there _is_ a way to get some relief from the 20-line limit.
Turn some of the lines into (residential) ISDN BRIs.  Each has two B
channels.  There are some devices (Adak makes one) that convert it
into two analog POTS jacks. In effect it's doubling the capacity of
each pair, even if you don't have people dialing in on ISDN.  And some
devices have modems built in.  Check out the ISDN web page that Dan
Kegel maintains on: http://alumni.caltech.edu/~dank/isdn 


Fred R. Goldstein  fgoldstein@bbn.com 
Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc.  Cambridge MA
USA +1 617 873 3850

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



Dave Harrison <west@via.net> writes:

> And by the way, co-operative or not, you should be paying for business
> service. You can't argue "we're non profit"... so is the Red Cross and
> they pay for the proper service.

The tariff does not agree with you. There are specific points involving
business service:

1. The phone is installed in a business location;

This means an office building or structure in a business district. Or
it means in a business environment that is not a domicile. The Red
Cross has offices downtown; the poster is in a home.

2. The number is advertised;

The Red Cross even runs media ads. The poster does not.

3. The number is answered as a business;

The Red Cross answers, "Red Cross...". A modem answering is neutral
(neither necessarily business nor residence).

I have been around and around with Pac*Bell types who try to regrade
various services to business. I always win when we get down to the
wording in the tariffs.


John Higdon  |    P.O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115     |       FAX:
john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 |   +1 500 FOR-A-MOO    | +1 408 264 
4407
             |         http://www.ati.com/ati             |


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would have to take exception with 
John's
third point, 'the number is answered as a business' and 'a modem is 
neutral (neither necessarily business or residence)'. A phone which is
answered with a person's name (for example, an direct-dial extension at
a company where the user replies, 'John Smith speaking') could have the
same kind of neutrality of which you speak, but no one would be fooled 
into thinking that John Smith was going to have a social call and there-
fore should be charged residence rates. Likewise, merely because the 
human brain cannot decipher via the ear what a modem is 'saying' -- we
hear only the squeaks and hisses -- that does not mean that the message
delivered to the caller is a neutral one. When the message is 
interpreted
by a similar device -- just as when a foreign speaking person's message
is translated for us -- the context might well be business. If the
message sent as interpreted by the modem on the other end of the line
says 'you are connected to the XXX Internet Gateway Service' then it
is indeed quite arguable that the service should be classified as 
business.
The context is all-important here. On the other hand if the modem 
replies
with a message saying 'this is X, I am a deaf person; you have reached
my residence and this is how I communicate' then obviously you are 
talking
about residential service. 

I do not know about the tariff in California, but the tariff here states 
things a bit differently. (1) any service which is not exclusively for
the personal use of the residents of a domicile is a 'business' service.
(2) at an address which has historically been used for business, then
any service installed there must be business service; however at an 
address which has historically been residential in nature then residence
service is available *unless the line is being used for business 
purposes.*
(3) there are no distinctions made between 'for profit business' and 
'not
for profit business'. There are no distinctions made between social 
and/or
religious organizations and businesses. The only distinction made is if
the phone is in an historically residential area and if it is intended 
for
the non-business exclusive use of the residents therein, in which case
residence service is an available option to the subscriber. 

The error by telco is one of nomenclature. Long ago the types of service
should have been described as 'exclusive personal use by one or more
individuals at a place of residence' and 'all other service.' Then 
either
you qualify for the less expensive rates or you do not.  PAT]

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



Steve Cogorno  <cogorno@netcom.com> wrote:

> Toby Nixon said:

>> So what if it takes a few more digits to dial *00,12068828080 when, 
if
>> it was local to me, it could have been dialed as just "8828080" --
>> those "extra" six digits only took half a second to dial, and I 
didn't
>> have to make two or three failed call attempts to find the right 
digit
>> sequence! This ought to be implementable on PBXes just as easily as 
on COs.

> This is already the case.  Dialing 1+NPA for calls within that NPA 
will
> go through.  This is part of the "new" NANAP numbering system.
> If your LEC is doing it differently, then they should be told
> that they are not following the proper dialing procedures.

The North American Numbering Plan Adminstration at Bellcore has no
legal authority to mandate dialing procedures in the LECs. That
authority rests with the public utility commissions in each state, at
least for now. Only a couple of states currently permit 1 + NPA + 7D for
local calls, and the blame for this rests squarely with the PUCs. One
of the states that permits universal 11-digit dialing is California,
and the PUC there is to be commended for that. But this is the
exception, not the rule.

> Even if you COULDN'T dial 1+NPA calls, this is an extremely easy
> problem to fix in a software environment.

Baloney.  It's only appears to be "extremely easy" to those who
haven't actually tried to deal with designing software to do this,
across the country and around the world.

> First, create a user profile for the CALLING number:
> area code
> outside line access (8,9,nothing,etc.)
> long distance access (1,0 for charge, 102881 for AT&T, etc.)
> suffix (calling card, charge account, etc.)
> country

> Then for each stored number:
> area code
> phone number
> country

> When the user calls from a new location, he or she changes the CALLING
> number data to include the new area code and outside line access. The
> computer then the desired number against the current area code and if
> they are different it dials it.

> The AppleTalk Remote Access software has a good example of this: it's
> called DialAssist.

Well, the Dialing Properties feature in Windows Telephony is a good
example, too. And since the ongoing design of that feature is my
responsibility, I hope you respect the fact that I have a pretty good
feeling for what is required. You are greatly oversimplifying the
problem! I started out thinking it was as simple as you state, and
wish that it were true -- but it isn't. Reread my previous messages.
Look at what the reality is out in the world.



   

It is NOT as simple as "if the country code is different, dial the
international prefix then the country code". If you're in Italy
calling San Marino, you dial "0549" then the local number, instead of
"00378"; if you're in San Marino calling Italy, you dial "0" and the
city code, not "0039"; if you're in Singapore calling Malaysia, you
dial "0" and the Malaysian city code, not "00560"; if you're in Mexico
calling a country in WPA 1, you dial "95" plus the area code, not "98"
plus the country code (1) like for every other country in the world.
If you're in Russia dialing Estonia, you prefix the local number with
"8 014" instead of "8 10 372".  I could go on and on with these
exceptions -- I have two full pages of them.

Likewise, dialing within countries is not so simple. In Austria, the 
city code for Vienna is "1" if you're calling in from outside the 
country, but "222" if you're calling from inside! In France, if you're 
outside Paris, your city code is "null" (you don't have one) while it 
is "1" inside Paris, but if you're inside Paris and the destination 
number doesn't have a city code, it doesn't NECESSARILY mean that you 
need to dial the "16" long distance prefix (if the local number starts 
with "15", it is a toll free number that doesn't need the prefix). If 
I'm in the 416 NPA (Toronto) and I'm dialing certain exchanges in the 
Toronto suburbs (NPA 905), I must dialing then using NPA+7D, but other 
exchanges that aren't local calls to me must be dialed as 1+NPA+7D; 
this situation exists in Dallas, Houston, Washington DC, Atlanta, and 
Miami, and is spreading. There's simply NO WAY TO KNOW whether a given 
call to another NPA must have, or not have, the leading "1", without a 
huge database -- and you can't load that database from some central 
repository, because the exchanges that are local TO YOU can vary based 
not only on the exchange you're calling from, but on the basis of 
optional subscription plans.

It is, in fact, a monumental software engineering problem. It is an 
awful data collection problem as well. None of it would be necessary if 
there was a *real* nationwide standard dialing plan that allowed all 
calls to be dialed the same way, but there isn't, your assertion 
notwithstanding.

> Let's leave the  re-engineering where it belongs: with the computer
> people who want to interface into the public TELEPHONE network.

Why? There's ample processing power in all those 5Es, 4Es, and DMS-100s 
out there to route the call properly even if it has "extra digits". The 
phone network is being re-engineered all the time by the PUCs, who have 
imposed or are imposing ridiculous 10-digit local dialing across NPA 
boundaries in a half-dozen metro areas already, and the problem is 
growing. In every one of these cases (except maybe the overlay NPAs in 
Houston, which will require universal 10-digit dialing between them 
starting next year), dialing correctly requires either acquiring or 
building a database to know, for each exchange, which exchanges in the 
same NPA must be dialed as 7 or 11 digits, and which exchanges in the 
other NPAs must be dialed as 10 or 11. And, no, they do NOT have 
permissive 11-digit dialing for non-toll calls in ANY of these places!


Toby Nixon
Program Manager, Windows Telephony
Microsoft Corp.

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



James E. Bellaire <bellaire@tk.com> writes:

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

I agree with Mr. Bellaire. Let's leave the PBX systems as simple as
possible for the majority of the users. The place where I'm currently
working has five-digit extensions, and ties up all of 1 centrex prefix
and portions of two others. Dialing five digits to get the next desk 
over
seems to be a bit much already -- having to dial * or # first? No thank
you.  I'd love to have the PBX software take one, two or three digits as
"shortcut" dialing -- if I dial one digit, take my number, truncate the
last digit, add the one I dialed and connect me. Same with two or three
digits.  Yes, I know it won't work with 9 or 0, but it would be nice.
Yes, I'm aware that large C.O. level centrex PBXs have intercom 
functions.

>> 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.

One pet peeve I've had with terminal programs with dialing directories
is that I have to edit the phone file when I change area codes. I'd
love to just enter 1-xxx-xxx-xxxx for each number, and then enter
the area code that I'm calling from in a different field, and the
program would "know" not to dial 1-xxx then they match.

>> 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.

Hopefully you;ve reported the person missing before you get the call,
so when you hit *67 (is that the code?) the police can act quickly.

> 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).

I've seen a few that did that. Dial 9 to get outside? fine. "11" times
out and translates to 911. Doesn't take rocket science - just decent
software.


Mike Morris     morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us

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



Clifton T. Sharp (clifto@indep1.chi.il.us) writes:

> In article <telecom15.394.5@eecs.nwu.edu> johnl@iecc.com (John Levine)
> writes:

>> 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.

The answer is that it allows you to collect the calling number of a
call that you don't need to report to the cops.  I would prefer to use
cops when there's an emergency, and to use less expensive measures
when there is not.  An anonymous phone call is often an annoyance, but
it is seldom an emergency.


Dave Levenson  Internet: dave@westmark.com
Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: 908 647 6857

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



Toby Nixon said:

> So what if it takes a few more digits to dial *00,12068828080 when, if 
> it was local to me, it could have been dialed as just "8828080" -- 
> those "extra" six digits only took half a second to dial, and I didn't 
> have to make two or three failed call attempts to find the right digit 
> sequence! This ought to be implementable on PBXes just as easily as on 
COs.

Toby,

This is already the case.  Dialing 1+NPA for calls within that NPA
will go through.  This is part of the "new" NANAP numbering system.
If your LEC is doing it differently, then they should be told that
they are not following the proper dialing procedures.

Even if you COULDN'T dial 1+NPA calls, this is an extremely easy
problem to fix in a software environment.  First, create a user profile
for the CALLING number:

 area code
 outside line access (8,9,nothing,etc.)
 long distance access (1,0 for charge, 102881 for AT&T, etc.) 
 suffix (calling card, charge account, etc.)
 country

Then for each stored number:
 area code
 phone number
 country

When the user calls from a new location, he or she changes the CALLING
number data to include the new area code and outside line access. The
computer then the desired number against the current area code and if
they are different it dials it.

The AppleTalk Remote Access software has a good example of this: it's
called DialAssist.

Let's leave the  re-engineering where it belongs: with the computer
people who want to interface into the public TELEPHONE network.


Steve    cogorno@netcom.com

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



Toby Nixon <tnixon@microsoft.com> writes:
 
> So, why SHOULDN'T the phone network be designed so that computers can 
> be connected to the network ANYWHERE and be permitted to input a 
> fully-qualified international number (including country code) and have 
> the NETWORK figure out how to route the call, instead of the computer 
> needing to be pre-programmed to know exactly which subset of the phone 
> number needs to be dialed, along with whatever prefixes are needed?  
 
That could be done easily enough -- all AT&T (or whatever the new
hardware company will be called), Northern Telecom and others have to
do is rewrite their switch software.  However, this would eliminate
the safety feature that now exists in most (but not all) areas where
you can't accidentally dial a toll call as a local one or vice-versa.

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



Toby, I agree with everything you say.

I'm glad to hear from many people how much hope there is for
simplified dialing from direct lines and for good call tracing.  I
hope that the good examples of these become universal.

Here are some answers to other points raised by others.

Many of you seem to not be too well in tune with what might go through
a child's mind.  Yes, I agree that it's a good idea to teach them to
call 911 (when they're old enough -- see below) and it would be good
to fix the systems so at least that would always work.  But then, what
shall the child do when they're not sure their fear merits a call to
911?  I would hope they would call home.  And what if they're afraid
that the big authorities at 911 would say they're crying "Wolf"?
They'd want to call home instead.

And there are situations when your child would want to call home
simply because they're afraid or don't feel well, and they don't want
to disturb other people or are embarrassed or afraid to disturb them,
like when they stay overnight somewhere.  This is not life-threatening, 
but still, a person, the child, is suffering.  Must we be hard-hearted
and defend our crufty system that some of us love the way it is?

I could revise my instructions to the child to this:

    "Pick up any phone, dial our home telephone
    number, and we'll answer.  If that doesn't
    work, call 911 if it's an emergency.  Even if
    you don't get to speak, it will help to know
    where you called from."

Another problem is that really tiny children can be taught their phone
number, way before they're able to understand what an emergency is,
and way before it's appropriate to get them thinking about what they
would do if they were kidnapped or caught in some sort of disaster.
If you raise this kind of issue with a really small child, it can be
terrifying to them.  A friend gave us a videotape to show our then
3-year-old daughter about what to do if you're approached by a
stranger or taken away by them.  I wish we'd looked at it before
showing it to her.  It was quite nicely done, but still she was very
frightened by it, and had nightmares about it for a long time.

This is why I made such a big issue of dialing home rather than 911.
911 is problematic, especially for really young children, when calling
home is not.

0 would be good if it always worked because it's presumably a number
you can call in something less than an emergency, but it often doesn't
work.  Many, many companies in my experience send 0 calls to a
recording except during business hours, many even during business
hours.  Besides it has some of the same problems from the child's
perspective that 911 does.  I don't see a need to take on making 0
work for kids everywhere if we can get phone numbers and 911 to work
nicely.

Here I must confess that while the child safety concern was what
pushed me over the edge to raise the dialing weirdness issue, I too
think there are other less urgent reasons to deal with it.  Yes, I'm a
dad of a small child, but I'm also a user of phones and computers
myself.  In addition to Toby's excellent points about computer
dialing, there is another annoyance.  Haven't you ever picked up the
phone at work and started to dial a number without the 9?  Haven't you
ever picked up the phone at home and started to dial 9?  This kind of
mistake is not stupidity or some kind of disability, it's what happens
with wetware.  And it is evidence that there is something wrong with
the usability of the system.

I admit that my proposal for putting through calls from pay phones
without paying and without having to speaking to an operator need some
work, but think the goal is a good one, and it should be worked out.
The same goes for phones in elevators, lobbies, and other places where
companies now summarily block outside or long distance calls.  In
working it out, we would have to take into consideration language
barriers and fear at having to talk to a strange adult (operator).


Dave Yost     Apple ATG

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



Toby Nixon <tnixon@microsoft.com> wrote:

> But in this case, adding some consistency, simplicity, and sanity to
> the dialing plan in North America would help a lot more than
> four-year-olds. It would, in fact, go a long way toward making it
> possible to reliably dial calls from your computer, wherever you might
> be. We all know that computers are actually dumber than
> four-year-olds, right?

       There are many more people out there that are not computer
users than those who are computer users.  And while you may be used to
dealing primarily with computer users who move their computers from
place to place, even the vast majority of the (rather small, in the
overall scheme of the world) number of people who have computers do
not move them from place to place or even from one line to another.

> We need to get the state public utility commissions out of the
> business of dictating dialing procedures, and overcome the fiction
> that dialing a "1" before a number means "I have to pay extra for this
> call". We need a national consensus among LECs and PBX vendors on what
> this prefix should be that allows a fully-qualified international
> phone number to follow.

        I would hope that LECs and PBX vendors would be much more
interested in the interests of the entire population than the small
number of computer users who would see any benefit at all from this
proposal.  And I can assure that in many large parts of the country it
is by no means a "fiction" that dialing 1 before a number means it
will cost extra for the call.  A vast part of the population is
concerned about whethe or not it will cost extra for the call,
although perhaps the few number of people who will be benefitted by
this proposal do consider cost of no interest.  But the vast majority
of the population does worry about money and costs.

> Mr. Yost's point about children being unable to figure out how
> to dial in an emergency situation is a good one to wake up
> regulators, legislators, and telephone system designers who 
> otherwise might not pay attention to the problems caused by
> confusion in the national dialing plan. Once awareness of the
> problem is raised, however, I would expect the primary
> motivation for finding a solution would be to facilitate
> shipping and installing shrink-wrapped software with preloaded
> phone numbers, distribution of phone numbers and dialing 
> directories over the Internet that can be dialed anywhere, 
> simplification of dialing configuration for travelers with
> computers.

       If this would be the primary motivation, it would indeed mean
that the whole world has been remade for the benefit of software
companies, including the one that seems to have been the most
successful of all under the present system.

       I hope the regulators, legislators and telephone system
designers continue to be considered about the people of the U.S.A.
rather than the convenience and profitability of software companies 
and a small percentage of the population who takes their computers to
different phone systems and has no concern at all about how much it
will cost them.


Wes Leatherock   wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com                            




wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu                       
wes.leatherock@f2001.n147.z1.fidonet.org           

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



Contact Bell Atlantic and have them place a block on your line.  They
are very friendly :) and the service is free.  I was slammed twice by
MCI, and I haven't had a problem with them since.

Next, find WilTel's phone number.  Here is their web site ...

http://www.wiltel.com/corporat/cfwt.html

Harass them.  Let them know how much you dislike them.

Try anyname@wiltel.com ... send hate mail!


MT - Vienna, VA

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



A local newspaper also published the entire Unabomber text.

"Pocket Unabomber Text"

Editor's note: After intense internal debate, the {Twin Cities Reader}
has decided, in the interest of reader safety, to publish the entire
Unabomber manifesto."

The whole thing fits on a 3 by 5 inch card.  The text is somewhat 
smaller
than the legible version which required several pages in larger papers.


Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@fieldday.mn.org

1. Laws are society's common sense, written down for the stupid.
2. The stupid refuse to read.  Thank you for choosing to read.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Just a reminder to readers who have
asked about the full Unabomber text that it is available in the Telecom
Archives. You can either get it using anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu or
by using the Telecom Archives Email Information Service. To use the
latter, send email to 'tel-archives@lcs.mit.edu'. The subject does not
matter. As the entire text of your message issue these commands at
the left margin, just as shown here:

REPLY yourname@site
GET unabomber
END

If you wish more information about the Telecom Archives Email 
Information
Service and the hundreds of files available in addition to the past four-
teen year's of this Digest, then add the commands:

INFO
HELP

prior to the END instruction.  The Unabomber text is quite large and
will be sent to you in several parts, numbered appropriatly.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #415
******************************

                                      
