
From telecom-request@delta.eecs.nwu.edu  Thu Aug 31 16:20:30 1995
by
1995
16:20:30 -0400
telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 31 Aug 1995 12:03:07 -0500
1995
12:03:04 -0500
To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 31 Aug 95 12:03:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 366

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 1-800-555-xxxx (William Brownlow)
    Re: 1-800-555-xxxx (Mark J. Cuccia)
    Re: 1-800-555-xxxx (Brig C. McCoy)
    Re: 1-800-555-xxxx (Carl Moore)
    Re: 1-800-555-xxxx (Bob Keller)
    Re: San Francisco Area Codes (Roger Fajman)
    Re: San Francisco Area Codes (John David Galt)
    Re: Allnet Tries to Hide Adult Services (John E. Briggs)
    Re: How to Distinquish Local From Long Distance Numbers (Jim 
Donaldson)
    Re: How to Distinquish Local From Long Distance Numbers (Barry 
Margolin)
    Re: Area Code Crisis -- A Different Viewpoint (Sergio Gelato)
    Other "Special" Areacodes (Mark J. Cuccia)

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.

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



DavidB.Horvath wrote:

> It looks like the 1-800-555 number space is available for "normal"
> toll free phone numbers.

> I got a call from a Contract-programmer broker in Texas (they wanted
> to know if I was interested in a job down there), when I mentioned
> that I wasn't interested but might be able to pass the lead on to a
> friend who was interested in moving to TX, I was given a 1-800-555-
> number.  I confirmed the number to make sure I heard it correctly.

> Now what are the movies going to use to show someone dialing a toll
> free number?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't know what they will do now. 
Maybe
> the YANG! principle should be applied.  YANG = Yet Another Noise 
Group.
> Should I put up a message in news.groups calling for a discussion on 
what
> to name the new group which will discuss how Hollywood should handle 
the
> use of telephone numbers when telco no longer has the luxury of 
providing
> them with numbers that won't disturb the real people?   PAT] 

I remember reading a blurb in {The Washington Post} about using 555
numbers.  It stated that Bellcore had agreed with the movie studios
certain combinations would not be issued.  These combinations could
and would continue to be used in movies and television programs.
Thus, as an example, 555-1234 would not be issued and would be
available for use by the entertainment and advertising industries.

A few years ago a Charles Bronson movie, Telephon, was released.  The
distributor, Universal(?) set up an 800 number for some purpose which
was reached by dialing 1.800.TELEPHO(n).  I wonder who has 
1.800.835.3746 
now?

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



David B. Horvath, CDP <dhorvath@goldey.gbc.edu> wrote:

> It looks like the 1-800-555 number space is available for "normal"
> toll free phone numbers.

(snip)

> I was given a 1-800-555- number. I confirmed the number to make sure I
> heard it correctly.

> Now what are the movies going to use to show someone dialing a toll
> free number?

(snip)

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't know what they will do now.,,,,

Yes, 800-555 was made available to "regular" numbers sometime last
year, I think in December. Maybe Judith Oppenheimer has some more
details on this.

I remember seeing it in Bellcore TRA's INPG fiche (Industry Numbering
Plan Guide) and LERG when I last ordered them in December 1994.

I also remember that one of my free mailings from Bellcore NANPA last 
year 
stated that 800-555 was going into the "general" portability pool.

Some of my Bellcore free mailings from NANPA, the ICCF, and the INC
have talked about *other* NPA's using the 555 exchange code for
services *other* than regular Directory Assistance or other telco
services. Bellcore NANPA is working with 555-XXXX line number
assignments, and it *seems* that this will be yet *another* 976-type
of code! :-(

There are plans for single NPA assignments of particular 555-XXXX
numbers, regional or multiple-NPA assignments of a particular 555
number to a particular subscriber, and national/NANP-wide/most-NPA's
assignments of a specific 555-XXXX number.

MANY 555 numbers, it seems, are now in *conflict* according to one of
my mailings from Bellcore/ICCF/INC. There were *simultaneous* requests
for the same groups of XXXX line-numbers, such as 6397 (NEWS), 8255
(TALK), 5683 (LOVE), etc. The mailings I got listed the line numbers
which are in *conflict*, along with the multiple *simultaneous*
requesting companies, but not the "letter" mnuemonics. There were even
some numericals which would even spell out profanities, but as I said,
the mailing only listed XXXX numbers- NOT letters/names. BTW,
Cap.Cities/ABC (Radio & TV News, etc) requested some of the form 7777,
and I think that CBS-The Columbia Broadcasting System had requested
some 2222 or the like. ABC-TV owns several TV stations in the US on
Channel 7, while CBS has many Channel 2's. Or even if they don't *own* 
the
station, many affiliates are on those channels.

For motion-picture/TV/Radio/dramatic fiction, etc, the 0100 to 0199 
block 
of line numbers are NOT going to be assigned to working numbers within 
the 
NPA-555-XXXX service. I don't know how this is going to apply to 
800-555-XXXX, tho'.


MARK J. CUCCIA   PHONE/WRITE/WIRE:     HOME:  (USA)    Tel: CHestnut 1-
2497
WORK: mcuccia@law.tulane.edu          |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-
2497)
Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28  |fwds on no-answr 
to
Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-
5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail

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



DavidB.Horvath wrote:

> It looks like the 1-800-555 number space is available for "normal"
> toll free phone numbers.

Noticed the same thing with 1-900-555 yesterday, as the Priority
support number for Artisoft is 1 900 555-8324, used it in resolving a
LANtastic problem, so I know it wasn't a typo. :)


Brig C. McCoy                   |      Automation Consultant
Southeast Kansas Library System |  Internet: brigc@world.std.com 
218 East Madison                |     Voice: 316 365-5136
Iola, KS 66749                  |       Fax: 316 365-5137

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



Speaking of Hollywood (and its use of 555-xxxx, not just in area 800,
in movies etc.):

I Love Lucy had telephone numbers in it from time to time.  They
changed from time to time, too; the phone company supplied them to
ensure there would be no answer if fans tried calling them.

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



In TELECOM Digest V15 #364, David B. Horvath, CDP 
<dhorvath@goldey.gbc.edu>
queried:

> Now what are the movies going to use to show someone dialing a toll
> free number?

Here's a thought.  Perhaps the movies should get rid of the 555 thing
altogether and instead use real live 1-900 numbers.  Then, if anyone
is curious enough to dial the number heard in the movie, the studio
could collect revenue at the rate $X.XX per minute.  Hey, that might
offset at least some of the cost of Waterworld!

[Note to any Hollywood type reading this list: In consideration of my
valuable intellectual property rights in the above concept, I do, of
course, excep royalties on all calls received should you decide to
implement this scheme. <G>]


Bob Keller (KY3R)                      mailto:rjk@telcomlaw.com
Law Office of Robert J. Keller, P.C.   http://www.his.com/~rjk
Federal Telecommunications Law         Telephone 202.416.1670

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



> John Higdon is from the San Jose / San Francisco area. Maybe he might
> have some info to enlighten us on 318's use for calling into SF from
> outside of CA, or maybe some Bay area Exchange Name history -- (and SF
> was probably the only area of the country that used 55X numbers before
> All Number Calling -- KLondike-x (55X) WAS used in San Francisco, 
while
> most areas of the country never seemed to use the 55X range prior to
> the 1960s).

So am I, born in Oakland and raised in the East Bay. I don't remember
the 318 area code at all, but I was only 6 in 1951, so that's not
surprising.  We had the very neat Hayward phone number of LUcerne
2-3456.  But sometime, probably the late fifties, many people's phone
numbers were changed and ours became BRowning 6-xxxx.  I don't know
the reason.  Maybe a new CO was built.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I meant to comment on this the other
day but forgot to do so. Although John Higdon is from the San Jose and
San Fransisco area *now*, I don't believe he lived around that area in
1950-60 period. I believe he moved out there only in the latter part
of the 1970's.   PAT]

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



Seven-digit dialing between 415 and the Bay Area portion of 408
existed until some time in 1983, and the prefix list in the front of
the phone book did not distinguish the area codes either.  (In the few
cases where duplicate prefixes existed, usually in 415/707 or 408/707,
they inserted an asterisk with the note, "Some prefixes serve more
than one community.")

To my knowledge, there was never seven-digit dialing between 415 and
707 (or 408 and 707, which are not adjacent).  However, the split was
before I moved here.


John David Galt

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



dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) wrote:
    
> For telecom resellers, PBX administrators, COCOT-owners and such,
> there is generally no other option than to completely block calls to
> 900, 976, and now, 500 numbers.  If credit-card billing is accepted to
> these numbers, then 0+ calls to such numbers may be allowed if
> billed-number screening is also effective.

    I gather that there are some tech support services offered via 900
numbers, as well as some fax-on-demand services that also use a 900
number. Since these may be "legitimate" business services I was
wondering if call blocking is (generally) sophisticated enough to
permit blocking of, say, all 900 numbers except an approved list of
legit numbers. Are most people stuck with all or nothing blocking? Was
MCI's directory assistance 900 service badly damaged by call blocking
by businesses?
    
    Also, while on the general topic of, uhh, entertainment services
via telephone, I am aware that some such service providers have
resorted to deals with foreign country telephone companies to avoid
900/976 style blocking. I am curious about why we have, as far as I
know, thus far been spared a 10-XXX (appropiate, yes?) phone service?
Does the FCC sufficiently regulate long distance companies to prohibit
"dial 10-HOT-SEX-TALK" or have other mechanisms been easier to
implement for the 900 industry?
    

John Briggs (jebriggs@indirect.com  AZ, USA)

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



Thomas Chen <tchen@server2.tanji.com> wrote:

> How can one determine whether certain numbers are within the calling
> area and certain numbers are not?

Tom,

A phone number is comprised of NPA-NXX-EXTN.  Your local telco will
have a list of the NPA-NXX's that are local.  All other NPA-NXX's
are toll and will be charged at different rates.  Your phone book
may have the list but usually not.

By the way, I suggest dialling your long distance carrier's code
prior to making those calls that are not considered local by your
telco.  This will save you big bucks.

Just dial 10XXX before dialing your number where:

 XXX is 222 for MCI, 333 for Sprint, and 288 for AT&T.

Hope this helps,


Jim

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



In article <telecom15.363.10@eecs.nwu.edu> Thomas Chen 
<tchen@server2.tanji.
com> writes:

> How can one determine whether certain numbers are within the calling
> area and certain numbers are not?

In Massachusetts, the list depends on the calling plan you've signed
up for.  There are also two local calling areas, called Zone 1 and
Zone 2; the definition of these zones depends on the calling exchange,
and anything not in one of the zones is long distance.  Zone 1 is also
divided into Local and Other.

The service levels in the Boston Metropolitan area include:

_
                                                                                                          


* Measured: all calls are toll calls, with the rate depending on the 
zone;
* Unlimited: unlimited, untimed calls to Local Zone 1, otherwise like
Measured;
* Measured Circle: Measured or Unlimited, plus 2 hours/month of calls to
exchanges outside Local Zone 1 but within 25 miles;
* Circle: Unlimited calls within 20 miles;
* Suburban: unlimited calls within your own exchange and to Metropolitan
Boston exchanges *except* for Boston Central exchanges (I can't imagine 
why
anyone would get this -- who *doesn't* call Boston?);
* Metropolitan: unlimited calls to Metropolitan Boston and selected
exchanges depending on where you're calling from;
* Bay State East: unlimited calls to Metropolitan Boston plus 2 
hours/month
of calls to other exchanges in Eastern Massachusetts *except* 9AM-Noon
weekdays.

All the relevant exchanges and rates are listed in the local phone 
books.


Barry Margolin
BBN PlaNET Corporation, Cambridge, MA
barmar@bbnplanet.com
Phone (617) 873-3126 - Fax (617) 873-5124

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



Tony Harminc (>) commented on Richard Barry's (>>) words:

>> 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.

The department numbers (which were originally assigned alphabetically; 
since 
then additions and renamings have spoiled the regularity) have also 
never 
had anything to do with telephone area codes. The 1985 reorganisation 
was 
prompted to a large extent by the fact that all possible area codes had 
been 
assigned at that point.  Strange situations resulted, with (7) for the 
city 
of Lyon but (76) for Grenoble (which meant that Lyon numbers could and
did have 7 digits, but that they could not begin with 6).

Tony Harminc's remark is pertinent to French postal codes (which are 
based
on the departement numbers), but that is not very relevant to telecom.

[About variable length numbers]

> This is terrible 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.

Here in Italy, where variable-length numbers are the norm, the system
is constructed so that it is always possible in principle to determine
from the digits dialled so far whether the number is complete or not.
That is, 2345 67 and 2345 678 cannot both be valid numbers, but you
can have 2345 67 and 2345 680, 2345 681, etc. In theory, this means
that timeouts are never absolutely necessary. Of course for long
distance calls it will not be practical for the originating exchange
to store the detailed number length tables for every possible remote
exchange, but the information can be requested from the destination
exchange during call setup. I don't know whether this is actually
being done: I'm not obsessed with having the shortest possible call
setup time myself. (Even a timeout would be much shorter than the time
spent waiting for the person at the other end to pick up the phone.)

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, telephones do have 'enter' 
keys
> or 'carriage return' keys. It is the '#' key located underneath the 
'9'.

Irrelevant to the discussion of variable length numbers in Europe: my
switch doesn't interpret the # key that way, and attempts to use it
are treated as misdialed numbers. But I know it works in the USA.

> So why don't we have telephone numbers of any length with the 
understanding
> that when the subscriber has finished giving the instructions, a # is 
used
> to indicate conclusion. The network would then process what had been 
given
> in the proper context.   PAT]

I suspect that the cost of reprogramming all that data entry software
that expects NXX-NXX-XXXX for phone numbers is the real reason the USA
are trying to stick to 3+7 for as long as possible. As you note, there
is no intrinsic reason from the point of view of the network itself.
(Related question: why are the USA still using only nine digits for
Social Security Numbers, despite all the obvious shortcomings?)

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



Since I have made recent posts on Mexico, TWX, and the use of 318 for
San Francisco, and since I mentioned (in "809 in Jeopardy") the
'replace' code for "Caller-Pays-800" including the 'self-assigned' use
of 300 & 400 by Caribbean countries/islands for "caller-pays-800", I
wanted to mention some *other* special NPA codes.

I had mentioned about 880 being planned as a *standard* replace-type
of code if the caller wants to pay for an 800 number not available
from his calling area (at least from International/Overseas). At the
time I posted this to TD, I stated that I didn't know what was going
to be used for the 'replace' code for the new toll-free 888 code.
Recently, one of my free mailings from Bellcore stated that 881 is
being planned for 'replace' for Caller-Pays-888.  NOW, I do NOT know
how this will 'interwork' with the 'mark-sense' codes for billing-
identification purposes for remote manual operator-connect-only
'Ring-Down' points. 880 is NOT used for ring-down points, but 881-XXX
IS!  Also, 888-XXX is used as well!

We have had 800 for Toll Free since circa 1966/67. 900 was reserved for 
'mass-calling' as a 'choke' code in 1970, but its use as a nationwide or 
continentwide PAY-PAY-PAY-per-call special areacode didn't come into use 
until around 1981 or 82. There were the TWX codes, 510, 610, 710, 810, 
910. 
610 remained the Canadian TWX (and later Data services) until it was 
splash 
cut to 600 in 1993. 510, 710, 810, 910 (while probably still used on the 
now-again AT&T 'non-telco' TWX/Telex-II) were 'removed' from the DDD 
Telephone Switching Network by 1982 or so and along with 610 have been 
re-assigned as regular telephone NPA's. Specifically, 710 was reassigned 
circa 1983 to the US Federal Government, but it was about 10 years 
before 
many of us saw any other reference to it (for the GETS-Government 
Emergency 
Telephone Service/System), and that is *still* somewhat unspecified. We 
have 
*also* known about 700 since around 1983/84, being reserved for 
'carrier-services' sometime around divestiture. I understand that Canada 
is 
now using 700 numbers, similar to the way we use them here. And, of 
course, 
there is the 500 special areacode.

There is yet *another* special areacode, and its details/assignments
are still somewhat cloudy. Back in 1993, Bellcore reserved the 456
(new format) areacode for "International Inbound" purposes. There IS a
NANPA IL (Information Letter) explaining it, as well as mailings from
ICCF/INC. It will be assigned to carriers, *similar* to the way
500-NXX, 600-NXX, 900-NXX are being assigned now, and (prior to
portability), 800-NXX; HOWEVER, due to some foreign telco or
International Carrier code translations, a carrier requesting 456-NXX
codes will be assigned a *block-of-ten* NXX codes- the carrier will
have ALL TEN codes within a particular 456-NX.

I haven't purchased a Bellcore TRA LERG or INPG (or other product) in
almost a year, but there was NO listing of any 456-NX(X) assignments
when I purchased them last December. Incidently, there were also no
assignment listings of any 555-XXXX (for ANY NPA) in them neither.


MARK J. CUCCIA   PHONE/WRITE/WIRE:     HOME:  (USA)    Tel: CHestnut 1-
2497
WORK: mcuccia@law.tulane.edu          |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-
2497)
Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28  |fwds on no-answr 
to
Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-
5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When I first made mention of '710' here 
as
the code for 'Special Government Services' or 'Government Special 
Services'
I had someone write me to say they had contacted a friend or relative
working at the Pentagon to ask for more details about it, possibly to 
report in an article in the Digest. My correspondent said his contact at
the Pentagon almost choked when he found out that 'other people' knew 
about
it. Supposedly it is a highly classified secret matter. Despite various
requests and hints that more information for readers here would be very
much appreciated, no one yet has ever responded in a definitive way to
explain the workings of 710; how it is (to be) used, etc.  I wish 
someone
who actually knew something about it would write an article.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #366
******************************

                              
