
From telecom-request@delta.eecs.nwu.edu  Wed Oct 11 01:29:04 1995
by
1995
01:29:04 -0400
telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 10 Oct 1995 20:51:03 -0500
1995
20:51:00 -0500
To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 10 Oct 95 20:51:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 430

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Eliminate Dialing Weirdnesses - We Can Save Lives (Ed Ellers)
    Re: Eliminate Dialing Weirdnesses - We Can Save Lives (Dave 
LeVasseur)
    Re: Dealing With Bell Atlantic re Line Noise (H.D. Knoble)
    Re: Variable Length Phone Numbers (Bob Goudreau)
    Re: Dialing 911 Instead of Police's 7D Number (Barry Margolius)
    Re: Where Do They Get Precise TIME Information? (Gordon A. Lew)
    Re: Where Do They Get Precise TIME Information? (Dale Farmer)
    Re: Where Do They Get Precise TIME Information? (Ron Bean)
    Re: Pac*Bell Lied, Do I Have Any Options? (Ed Ellers)
    Re: Pac*Bell Lied, Do I Have Any Options? (Mike Curtis)
    Re: Slick Unit for POTS (David C. Pratt)
    Re: Help! I've Been Slammed by WilTel! (Robert Ricketts)

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.

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



Wes Leatherock <wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com> writes:
 
> 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.
 
But a lot of people do use telephones in cities other than their own,
and would benefit from being able to dial a call in a consistent
manner regardless of location.
 
Say I head east from Louisville on I-64, and at some point I realize I
need to call someone in Louisville to ask the address of my
destination in Lexington.  Depending on how far I've driven when the
light bulb comes on in my head, I may be able to place this call by
depositing a quarter and dialing seven digits, or I may need to dial
eleven digits and deposit more money.  I don't know exactly where that
point is along I-64, but I know it's there.  What harm would it do to
set things up so that, when I dial eleven digits, I will be connected
even if I'm still in the Louisville calling area?
 
> 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.
 
Ah.  Another Microsoft basher.  Why is it that so many people on
Usenet seem to think that whatever is good for Microsoft is bad for
the world?

Linc Madison <lincmad@netcom.com> writes:
 
> In areas where the difference between local and toll calls is both
> distinct and severe, it is reasonable to REQUIRE a 1 on all toll 
calls.
> However, it is entirely STUPID and POINTLESS to *prohibit* the 1 on
> local calls.  It serves ABSOLUTELY no valid purpose.
 
I guess the one reason for doing this (aside from it being a holdover
from old switches that couldn't pass a 1+ local call back into the
local network) would be that allowing 1+ local dialing would lull some
people into believing that certain numbers they called were toll
calls, just because they *thought* they were such and found that a 1+
call would go through.  I'm not so sure this isn't outweighed, as you
say, by the ease of allowing 1+ for anywhere to anywhere.
 
> And as for the so-called "international standard" of 00, we in North
> America will comply just as soon as the "standard" allows for
> subscriber-dialed operator-assisted calls.  Until then, a standard 
that
> was written with deliberate and malicious disregard for the 
requirements
> of the North American network will be disregarded, as it should be.
 
Expect to get flamed for being undiplomatic, ignorant of the ways of
the world, an ugly American imperialist, etc., etc.  (Not by me, 
though!)

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



In Telecom Digest #421, Marko Ruokonen wrote:

> Think about a fax machine dialing a wrong number because someone
> entered the number in a wrong "format" (leaving out 9 or prefixing it

We, like many large businesses, occasionally get fax calls to our
"front desk" number.  This caused our receptionists some consternation
since these calls, once started, came every five minutes or so.  We
finally hit on the idea of connecting a fax machine to one of our DID
lines.  The department that uses that fax can still give out the fax
number (since it is a DID) AND our receptionists can forward a fax
call to it for reception.  This also allows them the satisfaction of
picking up the fax and calling the perpetrator to give them the proper
fax number.


Dave LeVasseur, R&D Mgr, Midcom, Inc. N0DL dlevasseur@midcom.anza.com
Watertown, SD USA

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



I live on a rural line which goes about .4 miles up my lane. I had
noisy lines too once. Called the local Bell of Atlantic office (near
Bellfonte, PA) and made an appointment to talk with the resident
engineer there. He had some tests run and it was determined that the
line running up my lane was at fault. They stretched a brand new line
in, mounted a new service box on my private pole. This solved my
problem and allows easier diagnostics in the event a tree or something
"injurs" the line in the future (I live in the middle of a forest).
 
Bell is always doing maintenance on their lines. When miles and miles
of lines may be overgrown, have old less reliable junctions and
repeaters, etc., they value customer input so their priorities match
customer satisfaction better. Ask for an appointement with the local
Bell office engineer or CEO and then go out there and explain exactly
what problems you're having. Get your facts at to times of day, line
speeds, weather, dependency, etc. Make damn sure that you don't have
any electrical line (e.g., power cord for your PC; power supply, lamp
cord, etc.) within six inches of the phone line coming out of your
modem or modem card; even if you have to tape your phone line away
from these.  Also make sure the same is true in your house or
basement; that is, electrical inductance can and does mess up modem
connections big time.  

Before you use your points with the Bell engineer, you also may wish
to borrow another V.32 modem and try that to make certain it isn't a
modem problem on your end. After doing this homework, then meet with
Bell and ask for some testing to see if the problem can be isolated,
or if the local Bell engineer already knows about a potential stretch
of borderline data service problem in your neighborhood.
 
It is my understanding that V.34 technology is pushing the present
limit of standard phone lines. That you get 14.4 reliably says the
lines aren't all that bad. Depending on where you are located, and
where the source of the noise is, it may or may not be economically
feasible to do a quick fix.  The local Bell engineer can tell you
where you stand in this regard -- assuming you are not on a Sprint
phone:-)
 
------------------------------



villing@muc.de (Thomas Villinger) writes:

> Why should it be impossible to get portable numbers? I don't
> see any difference to the problems as they occur in a fixed
> numbering scheme.  We already do have "portable" numbers
> (think of all the mobile phones which are in fact portable
> numbers) and guess what i works :). Note that we do have a
> hierarchical numbering system but still work with databases,
> so it might be possible that a certain group of numbers get
> collected in an exchange aand are routed after the last digit
> which contains the necessary information is collected.

I think you're missing the point.  The term "portable numbers" is not
a synonym for "portable telephones".  Rather, it refers to the ability
to *change your telco while still retaining the same telephone
number*.  Obviously, this isn't much of an issue yet in your country,
where Deutsche Telekom is still an almost total monopoly.  But it's
about to become important here in the US, as competition for local
telephone service is starting to appear.  And we've already crossed
the number-portability bridge when it comes to 800 (toll-free)
numbers, where the recipient pays for the call, and thus gets to
choose which long-distance carrier will handle the call.  

You can no longer assume *anything* about an 800 number (geographical
destination or carrying telco) by looking at some leading prefix; you
have to parse the entire number and then look it up in a database in
order to route it.  Long-term general number portability could mean
that eventually *every* number works like this, allowing people to
have "lifetime phone numbers" that stay with them even if they move to
another state or choose to be served by another telephone company.
Any scheme that relies on inferring such routing information from
anything less than the entire phone number is thus an impediment to
number portability.


Bob Goudreau   Data General Corporation
goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com  62 Alexander Drive 
+1 919 248 6231   Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA

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



morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Mike Morris) wrote:

> The police are a bit to blame also for the poor design of the system 
> that doesn't have a non-emergency number to call 24 hours, and the 
> workaround the dispatchers have to use to get around that design
> (call 911).

> And it would be nice to have a standard non-emergency number: perhaps
> 912 or 999 could be used?  All the hardware is in for 911, all it 
would 
> take is programming, and public education.

Seems to me that we already have a standard non-emergency number: it's
911.

Whether right or wrong, the police have apparently designed a response
system around using 911 for both emergency and non-emergency problems.
Everyone here seems to think this is blatantly stupid, but I'm not so
sure.  In any case, it's the way the police (at least here in NYC)
have implemented the system, and for us to continue to abuse the
system by calling the local numbers out of stubbornness is wrong.  For
example, it is my understanding that in New York, the local station
cannot dispatch an officer, so if you call the local station to
complain about, say, a drunk singing loudly at 2AM, they must then
call 911 to get an officer dispatched.

So, stupid system or not, it seems like we should be trying to use the
existing system to it's best effect, or trying to change it; but
trying to use the existing system as if it were the system we wanted
is counter productive to both the individual and the system.


Barry F Margolius, New York City (speaking for himself, not his 
employer)
bfm@pobox.com    For PGP Key, finger bfm@panix.com

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



Dale.Robinson@DWNPLAZA.NCOM.nt.gov.au wrote:

> Jeffrey Yee wrote, amongst other things:

>> Is there a national reference that all telcos go by? Is it a 
satellite
>> signal, radio signal, or what? IF so Where is it and is there only 
one?

For those who might be interested, I have a small (5500 bytes) DOS
program which will dial either the Naval Observatory or NIST and will
then set your computer's clock to the correct time.  It adapts to all
time zones, and provides DST corrections automatically.  Send me an
e-mail if you want a copy of the program.  While it does generate a
long-distance call, the call durtaion is generally about 25 seconds,
so cost is minimal.  A description of the formats, etc. is below:

Note: NIST will now accept connections at 1200, 2400, 4800 or
      9600 BPS

                         DESCRIPTION OF THE NIST
                 AUTOMATED COMPUTER TELEPHONE SERVICE (ACTS)

                                     D  L D
              MJD  YR MO DA H  M  S  ST S UT1 msADV        <OTM>
             47999 90-04-18 21:39:15 50 0 +.1 045.0 UTC(NIST) *
             47999 90-04-18 21:39:16 50 0 +.1 045.0 UTC(NIST) *
             47999 90-04-18 21:39:17 50 0 +.1 045.0 UTC(NIST) *
             47999 90-04-18 21:39:18 50 0 +.1 045.0 UTC(NIST) *
             47999 90-04-18 21:39:19 50 0 +.1 037.6 UTC(NIST) #
             47999 90-04-18 21:39:20 50 0 +.1 037.6 UTC(NIST) #
             etc..etc...etc.......

UTC = Universal Time Coordinated, the official world time referred
to the zero meridian.

DST = Daylight savings time characters, valid for the continental U.S., 
are
set as follows:

  00 = We are on standard time (ST).    50 = We are on DST.

  99 to 51 = Now on ST, go to DST when your local time is 2:00 am and
  the count is 51.  The count is decremented daily at 00 (UTC).

  49 to 01 = Now on DST, go to ST when your local time is 2:00 am and
  the count is 01.  The count is decremented daily at 00 (UTC).

The two DST characters provide up to 48 days advance notice of a
change in time.  The count remains at 00 or 50 at other times.


LS = Leap second flag is set to "1" to indicate that a leap second
is to be added at 23:59:60 (UTC) on the last day of the current UTC
month.  The LS flag will be reset to "0" starting with 23:59:60
(UTC).  The flag will remain on for the entire month before the
second is added.  Leap seconds are added as needed at the end of any
month.  Usually June and/or December are chosen.


DUT1 = Approximate difference between earth rotation time (UT1) and
UTC, in steps of 0.1 second.         DUT1 = UT1 - UTC


MJD = Modified Julian Date, often used to tag certain scientific
data.


The full time format is sent at 1200 Baud, 8 bit, 1 stop, no parity.
The format at 300 Baud is also 8 bit, 1 stop, no parity.
At 300 Baud the MJD and DUT1 values are deleted and the
time is transmitted only on even seconds.


Maximum on line time will be 56 seconds.  If all lines are busy at
any time, the oldest call will be terminated if it has been on line
more than 28 seconds, else, the call that first reaches 28 seconds
will be terminated.


Current time is valid at the "on-time" marker (OTM), either "*" or
"#".  The nominal on-time marker (*) will be transmitted 45 ms early
to account for the 8 ms required to send 1 character at 1200 Baud,
plus an additional 7 ms for delay from NIST to the user, and
approximately 30 ms "scrambler" delay inherent in 1200 Baud modems.
If the caller echoes all characters, NIST will measure the round
trip delay and advance the on-time marker so that the midpoint of
the stop bit arrives at the user on time.  (In actuality, only the
OTM need be echoed).  The amount of msADV will reflect the actual
required advance in milliseconds and the OTM will be a "#".  The


                       

NIST system requires 4 or 5 consecutive delay measurements which are
consistent before switching from "*" to "#".  If the user has a 1200
Baud modem with the same internal delay as that used by NIST, then
the "#" OTM should arrive at the user within +-2 ms of the correct
time.  However, NIST has studied different brands of 1200 Baud
modems and found internal delays from 24 ms to 40 ms and offsets of
the "#" OTM of +-10 ms.  

For many computer users, +-10 ms accuracy should be more than adequate
since many computer internal clocks can only be set with granularity
of 20 to 50 ms.  In any case, the repeatability of the offset for the
"#" OTM should be within +-2 ms, if the dial-up path is reciprocal and
the user doesn't change the brand or model of modem used. This should
be true even if the dial-up path on one day is a land-line of less
than 40 ms (one way) and on the next day is a satellite link of 260 to
300 ms.  In the rare event that the path is one way by satellite and
the other way by land line with a round trip measurement in the range
of 90 to 260 ms, the OTM will remain a "*" indicating 45 ms advance.


For user comments write:
NIST-ACTS
Time and Frequency Division
Mail Stop 847
325 Broadway
Boulder, CO  80303


                   NAVAL OBSERVATORY FORMAT

                DDDDD jjj hhmmss UTC crlf*crlf

   DDDDD is the MJD as in the NIST format.

   jjj is the day number of the year.

   hhmmss is the hour, minute and second.

   As in the NIST format, the '*' is the OTM, but there is
   no allowance for transmission delays, nor does it change.


Gordon A. Lew    glew@ionet.net

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



Clarence Dold (dold@rahul.net) wrote:

> Jeffrey Yee (jyee@unixg.ubc.ca) wrote:

>> I have a question. Where does telco obtain their time signal from to
>> synchronize their clocks and equipment. I was in a CO one time when i

 A couple of years ago, (last time I got a standard reference
catalog from them.)  The National Bureau of Standards had in their
catalog a dos program that would using a modem call and sync your PCs
clock to the Naval Observatory clock to some obscenely high standard
of accuracy, way higher than the out of the box PC is capable of.

 It was five bucks or so, probably just enough to pay for it's
costs of copying & shipping the disks.  Some of the other reference
materials were VERY expensive.


Dale

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



> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Since WWV and WWNH can frequently both 
be
> heard in many parts of the central and western United States, there is 
an

   If you write to the station they'll send you a booklet that explains 
all 
this and more. They announce the address on the half-hour, but here it
is:

NIST/Radio Station WWV
2000 East County Rd 58
Ft Collins CO  80524

In addition to WWV and WWVH, the booklet describes a coded time signal 
(no 
voice) broadcast on WWVB at 60kHz, and another time signal broadcast 
from 
the GOES satellites (GOES = Geostationary Operational Environmental
Satellite).

Since many Digest readers are interested in history, I'll copy the
timeline from the booklet:

March 1923 First scheduled broadcasts of WWV, Washington DC
April 1933 WWV gets first 20 kW transmitter, Beltsville, Maryland
Jan   1943 WWV relocated to Greenbelt, Maryland
Nov   1948 WWVH commenced broadcasts, Maui, Hawaii
Jan   1950 WWV added voice announcements
July  1956 WWVB began 60 kHz broadcasts (as KK2XEI), Sunset, Colorado
April 1960 WWVL began 20 kHz experimental broadcasts, Sunset, Colorado
July  1963 WWVB began high power broadcasts, Ft Collins, Colorado
Aug   1963 WWVL began high power broadcasts, Ft Collins, Colorado
July  1964 WWVH added voice announcements
Dec   1966 WWV relocated to Ft Collins, Colorado
July  1971 WWVH relocated to Kauai, Hawaii
June  1972 First leap second in history was added to UTC time scale
July  1972 WWVL went off the air
Jan   1974 Voice announcements changed from GMT to UTC (WWV/WWVH)
July  1974 GOES satellite time code initiated
March 1975 Frequency calibration network using network color TV
           became a nationwide service
Feb   1977 20- and 25-MHz broadcasts from WWV and 20 MHz broadcasts from
           WWVH were discontinued
Dec   1978 20 MHz broadcasts from WWV were reinstated
Feb   1984 Frequency Measurement Service began
March 1988 Automated Computer Time Service (ACTS) began on experimental
           basis  [this is the dial-up modem service]


madnix!zaphod@nicmad.nicolet.com (Ron Bean)

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



<fatkinson@radix.net> writes:
 
> I have remote call forwarding on my home phone.  When I work,
> I generally forward my line to my desk at work and answer with my
> company name.  Interesting dilemna here should a telco person call my
> home during the time I am forwarded to my office.  Any feedback.
 
It shouldn't be hard at all for the phone company to determine that
you had call forwarding turned on, to a business number, at that time.
I can't see them squawking about it.

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



>> (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.*

> Refer again to above.

> Richard Eyre-Eagles, KJ7MU   Tempe, Arizona 

Amateur radio repeaters are usually located at commercial radio sites. 
Historically, the phone company has insisted that autopatches (telephone
line access) use commercial lines, even though business communication is
expressly forbidden by the FCC.  Several years back, this was 
overturned,
and amateur autopatches may insist on residential service even though 
the
autopatch is located in a commercial site.


   Mike Curtis
wd6ehr@kaiwan.com

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



> <b>There are two type of Slicks and I'm interested in hearing what
> other people's experiences are with them.</B>

A "slick" refers to a SLC-96, which stands for Subscriber Loop Carrier
and carries 96 POTS lines over 2 or 4 DS1 (T1) spans.  A SLC is AT&T's
brand of Digital Loop Carrier (DLC) although in the telco most folks 
call
a DLC a "SLC."

General requirements for DLC can be found in TR-57.

> One type is a "Universal Slick" which will allow DDS2 as well --
> something I won't be needing much more of with the recent arrival of
> Frame Relay.

It's not so much that there are two types of DLC, it's that there are
2 ways to set it up.  "Universal" means that the interface at the
central office is analog.  That is, there is a SLC-96 terminal in the
central offIce which has 96 phone line inputs.  These are wired onto
96 conventional phone lines out of the switch then transported over
the DS1 links out to the remote terminal where the telephones are
acutally connected.  Since there are two ends to the system the
non-Bell world calls this method of setting up the DLC "Double-Ended."

The other method to connect a DLC is "integrated." (In non-Bell
referred to as "single-ended") In an integrated system the Remote DLC
is connected directly into the switch on DS1 lines.  The SLC
interfaces to the switch according to a spec in TR-8.  A newer
standard, TR-303 is beginning to roll out now.  The 60 lines off hook
at one time is a restriction on the 5ESS switch module (DCLU, the
newer one is called IDCU) on how many lines can be active at once.
Integrated has the advantage of eliminating back-to-back analog
devices which can degrade the audio.  On traditional SLC you are
correct in stating that designed special services like DDS and FX will
not work -- this is because the traditional way to deliver these is
thru analog connections at the CO.

Several newer DLC systems are available that can give you the best of
both worlds -- both integrated and universal in the same system.  Use
the integrated for low cost, high-quality POTS, and groom channels to
universal for specials.

> Nynex voiced concern (who woulda thought?) that some slicks might not
> be able to support full speed 28.8 connects,something of extreme
> importance for an ISP.

Most all DLC technology has trouble in some cases with high modem
speeds.  This is because DLCs are designed and tested to a set of
specs (TR-57) which describe VOICE characteristics.  In addition the
tariffs are written around VOICE parameters.  The telco cannot
guarantee that your modem will work at ANY speed, even 1200 baud!
They do, however, do the best they can because competition is
beginning to sprout up and they don't want to alienate people too
much.

In general I would suggest that integrated SLC is better - it
eliminates back-to-back hybrids.  Also try to take a little
responsibility yourself for getting the modems working -- study the
modems and figure out how to set their transmit and receive levels.
This is the main problem with using DLC vs cable -- the DLC levels are
higher since it hasn't gone thru the cable loss.  If you adjust your
modem to account for the "short loop" you'll be in better shape.


Dave Pratt   prattd@reu.reliance.sprint.com

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



> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And provided that once you know of the
> problem you *immediatly* quit using the carrier's services, prepending
> the requisite 10xxx code to regain the carrier you desire until the 
> service has been reinstated. See, its not only that slamming goes on.
> People find out they have been slammed, and then proceed to milk it to
> the hilt for a month or two, running up huge bills all the while 
claiming
> ignorance. Then of course comes the bill and they claim they knew 
nothing
> of it. 

It would be pretty easy to see through the claim of ignorance made by
a party who racked up huge charges just for a month or two just to take
free advantage of service.

>> I'm unsure quite how this works.  If I receive a package addressed 
and
>> delivered to me (e.g. not delivered to the wrong person) that I did
>> not order, I believe I have the right to keep it without paying for 
it
>> even if billed at a later time.  (An obvious exception is the 
negative
>> option refusal method used by record and book clubs.  But with those,
>> the negative option refusal is part of the contract you agree to.)

> Clarence Dold <dold@rahul.net> wrote:
> But you _did_ order the package (place the phone call).  You're upset
> that it didn't come from the company that you ordered it from, but
> they might be a supplier to a clearing house that you don't know.

And a call to that supplier inquiring about the package arriving from
the clearing house would yield that information, in which case I have
no objection.

But if I subscribe to, say, AT&T then all of the sudden start getting
serviced and billed by MCI, then I cry foul.  Wether or not I received
service from MCI is beside the point.  The point is I did not authorize 
MCI to change my service -- they offered without my consent, so they
pay.

(AT&T and MCI were used as examples.  I have no complaints about either
company.)

> That's how that rule came to be passed back in the 1950's; not so that
> people today could stiff a long distance carrier out of a few dollars 
due
> to a clerical error made somewhere. The rule is, if there is/was *any
> basis* for the action to take place (signed order, phone call from 
someone,
> etc) and the company acted in good faith, then you are *not* permitted
> to benefit from the error the company made.   PAT] 

But the company did NOT act in good faith.  That's the whole point.  I
have received packages in the mail before, sometimes quite valuable,
that I did not order.  One call to the company generates an apology
and a UPS call tag is promptly mailed to me.  I affix the tag and send
it back.  No problem.

Now, were I to knowingly continue to receive free products and
services for months on end or even take extraordinary advantage of
them, then *I* would not be acting in good faith, and I should pay.
But that's not what started this thread.  It started because Wiltel
acted in bad faith by enganging in slamming, a frequently occuring
practice.  Wiltel should not be rewarded with compensation of any
amount for their fraudulent behaviour, even at prevailing market
rates.  Otherwise, why would they stop?  Economic disincentive will
slow them down.  Sadly, slamming will continue as many people who are
slammed probably don't realize it -- they just continue to pay their
bill.

As for clerical errors, that could not happen if, as I originally
posted, the LEC required a PIN or SIGNED letter authorizing the
change.

PS: I received a printed copy of my original post via *inter-office
mail* from an anonymous sender with some important people CC'd.
Whoever you are, your anonymous mailing was cowardice and in poor
taste.  Please identify yourself.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #430
******************************

                                     
