
From telecom-request@delta.eecs.nwu.edu  Wed Sep  6 13:32:52 1995
by
1995
13:32:52 -0400
telecomlist-outbound; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 09:08:36 -0500
1995
09:08:34 -0500
To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 6 Sep 95 09:08:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 372

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: War on Payphones (Jim Gottlieb)
    Re: War on Payphones (Robert Jacobson)
    Re: War on Payphones (Jack Winslade)
    Re: War on Payphones (Scott Gordon)
    Re: Area Code Crisis -- A Different Viewpoint (Steve Cogorno)
    Re: Area Code Crisis -- A Different Viewpoint (Martin D. Kealey)
    Re: Area Code Crisis -- A Different Viewpoint (Ed Ellers)
    Re: Area Code Crisis -- A Different Viewpoint (Patrick Raffin)
    Re: Area Code Crisis -- A Different Viewpoint (Denis McMahon)
    Re: Voting by Phone in the Netherlands (Fritz Whittington)
    Re: Voting by Phone in the Netherlands (Clive D.W. Feather)

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.

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



> Although it's fun and popular to attribute controversial policy
> decisions, like the removal of payphones, to stupid politicians
> "battling" drugs, in fact this policy originated with the local
> telephone companies themselves.  The drug thing was strictly a red
> herring

I was in Los Angeles the other day and attempted to use the Pacific Bell
payphone located inside the restaurant where I was eating lunch.  My
pager had just gone off, telling me I had a voice mail message waiting.

However, after I dialed any number on this phone, the touch-tone pad
was shut off.  I expect this kind of behavior from COCOTs, but not from
P*B phones.

I called the telco to complain and they explained to me that this was
done purposely because that telephone is in "a high-crime area".  So
what am I supposed to do?  Hit the streets in this "high-crime area" to
find a COCOT that will let me check my voice mail?  And how many crimes
do you think the disabling of those touch-tone pads has averted?

If I really thought that this action was helping the local community I
might understand.  But it just seems to be so much of a meaningless
action that does nothing but inconvenience the honest citizen.


Jim Gottlieb | E-Mail: jimmy@denwa.info.com | In Japan: 
jimmy@denwa.linc.or.jp
Voice: +1 619 497 4788  |  V-Mail: +1 619 260 6912  |  Fax: +1 619 497 
4777
URL: http://www.info.com  |  Snail: PO Box 927591, San Diego CA 92192-
7591 USA


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why didn't you tell the person you were
speaking with that their answer was unsatisfactory and that you were 
going
to escalate it further?  Of course what they are counting on is that you
have neither the time nor resources available for the escalation, so 
many
service reps say whatever comes to mind in order to get you off the line
so they can move along to the next customer.   PAT]

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



I'm not sure I follow Patrick's argument, although it's clear he
has good knowledge of the situation in Illinois.  From experience
traveling around the nation, not only talking about payphones but
actually trying to use them (my current business is very dynamic
and I call from everywhere, all the time), I think the California
situation is more typical.

Of course, this brings to the fore, once again, the arbitrariness of
regulation and policy in a regime which is totally and unreasonably
fractured.  In this environment it is difficult, if not impossible,
for citizens to reasonably share knowledge across boundaries between
corporate fiefs, let alone do anything about it.

In a footnote to a previous posting, Patrick levels the boom on Judge
Greene for compelling the breakup of the AT&T Bell System, presumably
on its current lines.

As one who was involved, working for a state government policy body
at the time, I cannot imagine a more distorted picture of what occurred.

The AT&T diversiture case had been running for years before it reached
a head in Judge Greene's court.  As I recall quite clearly, the
Justice Department under Reagan, in the person of its antitrust
assistant secretary, went and cut a very private deal with AT&T's
executives.  What had started as a proceeding to divest AT&T of its
manufacturing facilities turned into a dissection of the national
network, because at that time AT&T perceived its future to lie with
long-distance, not local service.  We (in the policy realm) were all
stunned to see the settlement drawn up in that fashion, as it
obviously had not been the goal of the proceedings before the
Justice-AT&T huddle.  Judge Greene's later amendments to the Consent
Decree were trivial compared to this basic structural deviation from
what preceded it.

Patrick may not have liked Judge Greene's self-referential method of
governing the Decree, once it was drawn up, but revising history to
cast more aspersions on him only has the effect of letting the real
culprits off the hook.  I can't imagine this as Patrick's goal.


Bob Jacobson

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: An article in the {Chicago Sun Times} on 
Monday, Labor Day, discussed how bad the situation is getting here in
certain neighborhoods. There are areas you can go on the west side of
Chicago for several blocks without finding a payphone, and then when
you do find one, it is out of order. The article said hundreds of 
outside
payphones have been removed in poorer, minority neighborhoods as part of
the war on drugs. The rule now is there can no longer be payphones in
or around liquor stores as well, since these were used by 'gang 
members'.
The odd part is, they still have lots of payphones in the Board of Trade
Building and up and down LaSalle Street in the financial district 
downtown,
and those people use illegal drugs also. They have payphones all over 
City Hall as well, and the gang which owns that turf has been known on
occassion to use something other than Bayer Asprin. 

Regards the kindly old judge, enough already! I woke up in a good mood
today and want to stay that way. <grin>   PAT]

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



snake <p23610@email.mot.com> wrote:

> Don't forget the payphones installed in Las Vegas casinos, which are
> rigged to keep your quarter even if your call doesn't go through. At
> least the slot machines give you a chance at a payout.

Uh, I've been known to play occasionally in Las Vegas and since the 
1970's 
I've made notes of their phone system as well.  I have yet to encounter 
a 
pay phone, real or cocot, that intentionally keeps coins on an 
incomplete 
call.  (Or at least more of them there than anywhere else. ;-)
 
#include <info about supervision and ring tone detection>
 
One ironic thing that I find in one hotel where we frequently stay, they
have a flat $.50 per day for all the local calls you can eat, but zing 
you
$.75 for an 800 call.  I find myself using the room phone for local 
calls
and the lobby pay phone for 800 calls.
 
Funny thing I've found out about pay phones in LV, at least a few years
back, is that the real ones tended to be non-Bell and those that looked
like genuine ones were almost always cocots.

 
Good day      JSW
DRBBS - Omaha, somewhere in Middle America  (1:285/666.0)

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



Ameritech has recently changed all of its payphones to no longer allow
customers to call pager/voice mail boxes for FREE anymore.  It now 
requires
a 35 cent deposit.  Ameritech did this with no forewarning whatsoever, 
even
to the resellers to re-sell the pager products.

Can Ameritech go do this?  We had many un-happy customers, and we didn't
have a good answer to provide them with.  Currently were offering our
customers a $0.179 calling card which is billed in 6 second increments.
This wasn't the best answer, but at least the customers don't have to 
give
Ameritech the 35 cents.

Has anyone else been faced with this type of problem?


Scott Gordon - Internet ID: GORDONSBBS@DELPHI.COM
Need A Pager and/or Cellular Phone? You need it, I've got it! 
*** E-Mail SBBS@SBBS.NET For Current SBBS Wireless Promotions ***

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



Martin D Kealey said:

> Another mystery, why in NANP does a calling-card number *follow* the
> phone number -- surely it's just a specialized version of carrier
> selection?  Imagine having to dial carrier-selection 10XXX after the
> number ...

What do you mean here?  There is no NANP calling card format.  I think
you are talking about LEC calling cards which (usually) mean
NPA-NXX-XXXX YYYY where YYYY is the PIN.  It has nothing to do with
carrier selection; in fact, the call will be placed over the carrier
that that particular phone is presubscribed to (unless that carier
doesn't accept LEC cars - unlikely).

Most IXC calling cards are not composed of a particular phone number,
though you can have the card number reflect your home number, since it
is usually possible to choose the number.


Steve   cogorno@netcom.com

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



Steve <cogorno@netcom.com> writes:

> Martin D Kealey said:

>> Another mystery, why in NANP does a calling-card number *follow* the
>> phone number -- surely it's just a specialized version of carrier
>> selection?  Imagine having to dial carrier-selection 10XXX after the
>> number ...

> What do you mean here?  There is no NANP calling card format.  I think 
you
> are talking about LEC calling cards which (usually) mean NPA-NXX-XXXX 
YYYY
> where YYYY is the PIN.  It has nothing to do with carrier selection; 
in
> fact, the call will be placed over the carrier that that particular 
phone is
> presubscribed to (unless that carier doesn't accept LEC cars - 
unlikely).  

> Most IXC calling cards are not composed of a particular phone number, 
though
> you can have the card number reflect your home number, since it is 
usually
> possible to choose the number.

Maybe I have read the wrong thing into descriptions which of activities 
that 
describe dialing 0 + 10D + code?  Does this not mean "dial 0 then the
number you wish to reach then your activation code", or have I got it
wrong?  Even the "Bit-Fax" software (from USA) has that as the default
order ...

Maybe I've got the wrong term when I say "calling card"; that is just 
the
generic term which is applied here to the concept I thought I was 
referring
to.

You have a point that it doesn't alter the default carrier that a 
particular
phone is presubscribed to, but it is a payment authorisation, and that 
is
what I was trying to get at.


Martin

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



Martin D Kealey <martin@kurahaupo.kurahaupo.gen.nz> writes:
 
> Another mystery, why in NANP does a calling-card number *follow* the
> phone number -- surely it's just a specialized version of carrier
> selection?  Imagine having to dial carrier-selection 10XXX after the
> number ...
 
It doesn't just follow the phone number, it follows the handoff (if
any) to the long distance carrier.  (Which, among other things, means
that if you are using pulse dialing you have to switch to tone to
enter the card number.)  When this system came into use in the 1970s
it was the only way to do it without a *lot* of reworking in
step-by-step and crossbar central offices, and today it probably has
value in preventing hanky-panky on the part of the local phone
companies (since they don't have to decode and pass on the card
numbers, there's no opportunity to capture them for other uses).

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



In article <telecom15.362.3@eecs.nwu.edu>, Tony Harminc 
<EL406045@BROWNVM.
BROWN.EDU> writes:

> rbarry@iol.ie (Richard Barry) wrote:

> [UK numbering scheme not recommended as a model]

>> You can't tell which part of the country an area code is located
>> from the first digit or two, as one can in virtually every other
>> European country -- (eg area code 01232 is Belfast, Northern Ireland
>> while 01233 is in Kent in the South East of England).

>> Most European numbering plans have the following characteristics:

>> *Hierarchical area code structure* (like the US Zip code.  While one
>> mightn't know where Zip 90234 is precisely, even a non-American can
>> guess that it is on the West coast and probably in California.
>> Someone who knows California can probably guess it is in the LA area,
>> etc.)  This structure follows on to some extent from the country code
>> layout (eg all country codes beginning with 3 are in Europe).

> The French system is nothing like this.  The Departement numbers
> are scattered randomly around the country, so you can't tell where
> a number is unless you have memorized the list.

Do we talk about department numbers as found on motor cars or about
phone numbers?

Departement numbers are somewhat alphabetical, from 01 Ain to 89 Yonne,
plus 90 Belfort for historical reasons and the new 91-95 departments
which once were parts of the Seine (which includes only Paris now).
Add one or two oddities (Corse: 20 splitted into 2A and 2B,
Yvelines 78 which was Seine et Oise in the past), and that's it.

Phone area codes *were* somewhat geographical: they were two digit 
codes,
with the 2x assigned to the North, 3x to Normandy, 4x to the West, 5x to
South-West, 6x to South, 7x to Rhone-Alps, 8x to the East, and 9x 
divided
between Riviera and Brittany.

A phone number was then: (AB) PQ MC DU (AB was the departement code,
PQ the central office, and MCDU stands for milliers, centaines, 
dizaines, 
unites: thousands, hundreds, tenths, units)


_
                                                                                                                          

But they had to split some areas that were assigned to two or more
departements when these departements grew more than predicted.  (79
was assigned to both Savoie and Haute Savoie: Haute Savoie received
50, formerly Vendee, although it was in the 7x area...). 

Then these two digit codes were integrated into the national phone
number, and two areas were introduced: 1 for the Parisian area and *no
code* for the rest of France.  A phone number is now: (Z) AB.PQ.MC.DU

Next year they will anew introduce geographical area codes, 0x, with x
being 1 for Paris, 2 to 5 for North, West, South, East of France, 6 to
8 for special purposes (mobiles, freephone, etc).

So, if you know a bit of history and geography, you can tell where a
number is!  (Well, perhaps not anybody could :-)


Patrick Raffin                       e-mail : P.Raffin@frcl.bull.fr
Bull S.A    Tel    : +33(1) 30.80.61.05
Rue Jean Jaures B.P.68 , C4/022      Bullcom: (23)76105
78340 Les Clayes sous Bois FRANCE     Fax    : +33(1) 30.80.75.95

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



martin@kurahaupo.kurahaupo.gen.nz (Martin D Kealey) wrote:

>>> *Variable number length* so that cities that outgrow 7 digits can 
have
>>> 8 digit local numbers.   No multiple area code confusion.   Small
>>> towns can have even shorter local numbers, if desirable.

>> This is terrible idea,

> This is a *wonderful* idea.  :-)

>> for the one simple reason that telephones don't
>> have Enter keys.  So the switch has to decide when you've finished
>> dialing by some means, usually a timeout.  Or if the switch is smart
>                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> enough it may be able to avoid timeouts on certain calls, but the
>> result is inconsistent behaviour.

> If you're in NANP then you already have "local" numbers in three
> standard lengths (seven, ten and three) and it doesn't take a timeout
> to distinguish them; consider this:

> *  Is there any timeout when you dial "911" before the switch decides 
that
>    you aren't going to dial any more digits?  (There'd better not be!)
> *  Is there a timeout after you dial a 7-digit number before the 
switch
>    decides you're not going to dial a 10-digit number? (No?)

> Well, why should seven and eight digit versions of local numbers be
> any harder to deal? As long as no short number ever forms a prefix for
> any longer number, the switch can always tell how many more digits to
> expect after the first few digits.

No problem, except that the digit supervision is defined in the switch
you are connected to, not the switch at the far end.

> [I don't know, never having been there, but I would expect that even
> in Germany where DDI numbers can have a variable length inward dialing
> suffix, the PBX would know still when to initiate an immediate
> connection because this no-prefix policy also applies to extension
> numbers (eg no ordinary extension numbers start with a 0).  Can anyone
> in +49 confirm or deny this?]

Not from here, but there are two ways this can work:

1) Get a speech path to the PBX and then dial your additional digits;
or

2) Define either fixed (with additional analysis) or variable (with
timeout) length numbers in *ALL* exchanges where the PBX could be
called from, and that's a lot op places ...

> There is something to be said for having all national numbers of a 
uniform 
> length to avoid other countries having to maintain digit-length 
tables, but 
> this doesn't constrain length-variability of local numbers.

OK, but for every country any variable length national numbers will
invariably mean variable length international ones as well. ie in the
UK we have a mix of 10 and 11 digit national numbers, and that means
that +44 can be followed by either 9 or 10 digits!!

This means that for calls to the UK, either the shorter number length
has to time out, or analysis has to be done at the next digit - which
is another ten lines of data to maintain in every switch worldwide
that supports international dialing!


Denis McMahon = dmcmahon@edlgu4.ericsson.se, ECN: 832-5495, memo: 
etl.etldsmn
TEL: +44-1483-305495 / +44-802-211797 FAX: +44-1483-305261 / +44-1483-
305080

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



> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Suggestions -- and for that matter, 
full-
> bodied, substantial proposals -- regarding 'vote by phone' have been
> made here in the USA also, but nothing has come of it. All the usual
 . . . 
> all sorts within the city) has been shown how telephone voting, either
> with modem and computer or by touch tone buttons alone) would work 
quite
> well. They have been shown how, with the cooperation of the banking 
> network, voting could be done at any ATM machine. Of course *not 
everyone*
> has an ATM card, and of course *not everyone* has a computer and 
modem,
> but these would be two additional ways of 'getting out the vote'. 

I think that's exactly the key reason that the group in charge doesn't
want it.  They probably believe that the persons most likely to own
computers, modems, touch-tone phones, and ATM cards are also more
likely to be affluent, educated, and concerned individuals.  Making it
easier for more of them to vote (as opposed to the poor, uneducated,
pliable folk whose votes can be bought) is probably against their best
interests.

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



> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:

> Then there were the privacy freaks who insisted that
> the tighter the fraud controls, the more likely there would be massive
> invasions of privacy in the 'voting booth' if controls were 
established
> identifying the phone number being used and some other personal 
identifier
> such as social security number, etc.

If I vote by phone from home, how do you know there isn't someone
pointing a gun at my head telling me how to vote? That is the *basic*
point behind public polling stations.

And people's SSNs are, in general, far too easy to find (though I 
suspect
people might have more trouble finding out mine [*]).

[*] This is a public challenge. I have a USA SSN, though I am not and 
never
have been a resident or citizen of the USA. Anyone who can determine it
is welcome to ask Pat to post it here.

> Nor can they seem to understand that there are competent programmers
> who share a love for their country and a sense of patriotism which
> would develop the needed software in an instant -- as fraud-proof and
> fool-proof as the present manual system if not more so -- if it meant
> that more Americans would participate in the process. They would do so
> with a sense of integrity and ethics which would *never* willfully
> violate anyone's privacy.

Fine. Now how do I ensure one of those programmers writes the system
actually used?


Clive D.W. Feather      | Work: clive@demon.net        | Gateway House
Senior Manager          | Home: clive@stdc.demon.co.uk | 322 Regents 
Park Road
Demon Internet Ltd.     | Tel: +44 181 371 1000        | Finchley
                        | Fax: +44 181 371 1281        | London  N3  2QQ


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Because there would be but a single 
system
or type of software used. Either it would have been written correctly
and certified for use in elections or it would not be allowed. Since you
are so worried about fraud, how do you know the election judge is not
tampering with the ballot box while you are not watching? Did you know 
in
the USA the election judges don't even count the write in votes?  They
just ignore them. They only count the votes for the Republicrats or the
Demopublicans plus now and then a third party if one becomes strong 
enough
that they cannot be ignored. Regards the gun at your head argument, what
makes you think the public polling places are that much different here?
To get in, you have to run the gauntlet of electioneers standing outside
handling out their pamphlets and holding up their signs. They don't have
guns of course, but there is in many polling places an intense amount of
pressure put on the voter to vote 'the right way'.  At some polling 
places
in Chicago, you see gang members hanging around out in front, often 
times
chatting with the police officer assigned there.  I would much rather be 
able to vote in the privacy of my home via telephone. 

And actually, much of the software is already in place. Just some modifi-
cations for security reasons would be needed. We could use no-charge
900 numbers (getting back to their orginal, mass-calling intentions) to
vote. After all, if the newspapers and radio stations run popularity
polls and opinion polls now on 900 numbers I'm sure a secure way could 
be
devised to conduct a legitimate election via that method also. 
Preservation
of privacy and integrity in elections has *nothing* to do with the 
technology
used. They are separate issues entirely, and if anything, technology can
be used to enhance privacy and integrity. Manual elections are very much 
subject to fraud and spying on voters.  Manual voter registration 
records are
considered public in most places, although *how* the person voted is 
secret.

Even if you wish to stick with the public polling place concept, why are
these not automated?  Why can't voters walk into a small cubicle with a
terminal, properly validate themselves, and have a list of candidates 
for
various offices appear on the screen? They would move the pointer 
around,
selecting the ones of their choice. Votes would be instantly tallied and
the the accumulating totals made available for inspection. The main
problem here, as any good Chicago Democratic politician would tell you 
is
that it would be hard to get dead people from the cemetery to sit 
upright
at the terminal and keyboard.     PAT] 

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #372
******************************

                                                  
