TELECOM Digest Sun, 5 Mar 2000 19:50:00 EST Volume 20 : Issue 11
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
ICFC Call for Papers (David Loomis)
Re: Communication Tower Being Built (Travis Dixon)
Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees (Marcus Aakesson)
Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood (Marcus Aakesson)
Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood (J.F. Mezei)
DoubleClick Cries "Uncle" (Monty Solomon)
On the Internet, Your Bank is Not Your Friend (Monty Solomon)
Policy Post 6.06: Privacy Matters -- DoubleClick Doubles-Back (M Solomon)
Re: NXX by NPA (Stephen Kaps)
Re: 7D Dialing Across NPA Boundaries (Stanley Cline)
Re: 7D Dialing Across NPA Boundaries (Steve Riner)
Re: Long Lines Bells (Grover C. McCoury III)
Re: Long Lines Bells (Tony Pelliccio)
Internet Call Centers (Smarty)
Did Consumer E-Commerce Happen Too Fast? (Monty Solomon)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
611 Poplar Street
Independence, KS 67301
Phone: 805-545-5115
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/
mailing list on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
* 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, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order
telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com
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.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
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.
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 17:05:58 -0600
From: David Loomis <dloomis@mail.ilstu.edu>
Subject: ICFC Call for Papers
CALL FOR PAPERS
The 18th Annual 2000 ICFC Conference
"Convergence of New Technologies and Market Dynamics: Forecasting,
Economics and Marketing for the Communications Revolution"
Seattle Sheraton Hotel and Towers, Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
September 26-29, 2000
Hosted by Illinois State University
and the International Telecommunications Society
The ICFC Conference is an international communications conference for
marketing, forecasting and demand analysis. The ICFC attracts forecasters,
demand analysts, market researchers, product managers, statisticians,
academics, and consultants within, or interested in, the communications
industry. The ICFC provides state-of-the-art information and analysis of
existing and emerging issues as they pertain to communications forecasting,
planning, demand analysis, market research and cost analysis.
Please submit abstracts of 300 words or less by mail, fax or e-mail on
or BEFORE MAY 1, 2000 to: (preferred mode is e-mail; please include
name, address, phone, fax and e-mail on all correspondence)
David G. Loomis
Illinois State University
Department of Economics
Campus Box 4200
Normal, IL 61790-4200
Tel: 309-438-7979
Fax: 309-438-5228
E-mail: dloomis@ilstu.edu
Abstracts will be reviewed by the conference Planning Committee and
notification of acceptance will be given by MAY 31,
1999. Presentations will be generally about 20 minutes followed by a
brief discussion period. If you require more time for your proposed
presentation or you have any special audiovisual or computer
requirements, please indicate so in your abstract. All presenters are
expected to register for the conference and pay the regular
registration fee. A limited number of registration scholarships may be
available to academic and government presenters. Papers presented at
the conference are also eligible to be included in a conference book.
For more Information:
PLEASE VISIT ICFC HOME PAGE AT
http://www.icfc.ilstu.edu/
David G. Loomis Email: dloomis@ilstu.edu
Illinois State University Voice: (309) 438-7979
Department of Economics FAX: (309) 438-5228
Campus Box 4200
Normal, IL 61790-4200
Web Site: http://www.ilstu.edu/~dloomis/
From: Travis Dixon <travisd@shell.clark.net>
Subject: Re: Communication Tower Being Built
Organization: None of Your Business
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 23:22:33 GMT
This was a big discussion in misc.rural several months back.
You might want to check deja.com for articles on this - there
was some excellent info from folks there on easements and such.
Basically you should see a lawyer on *your* terms to make sure that
you're not giving up something that you don't want to be giving
up -- like rights to fence your land, etc...
travis
Linda Harris <tamworth@voicenet.com> wrote:
> We have been approached by a communications company, who wish to put a
> cellular communications tower on our property.
> We meet all their requirements regarding site, elevation etc., They
> had done all their homework before they approached us, and they know
> its in a prime site. Its known throughout this district, that our area
> is a black spot for cellular phones. We would like to know, before we
> go any further, as to the payment for the lease offered by them. The
> lease is to run for over 50 years. Is there anyone who has had
> similar dealings with having towers put on their property, and could
> give us an Idea as to what they were given as payment. Its obvious
> that they offer you the very minimum as an opening offer. We are
> curious as to the "going" rate. We live in western PA.
> Yours Faithfully,
> Linda Harris
> e-mail address....Tamworth@voicenet.com
From: Marcus Aakesson <marcus.akesson@no_spam_please.home.se>
Subject: Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 00:58:46 +0100
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 18:29:01 -0600, Jeremy S. Nichols <jsn@tc.umn.edu>
wrote:
> I would like a pair of phone numbers for my phone: one for which I pay
> the charges, and the other for which the calling party pays.
> My (U.S.) mobile account gives me first incoming minute free, so I can
> leave my phone powered on full time risk-free. I am careful to whom I
> give the number, however, as I don't want to be bombarded with junk
> calls like I am on my land-line phone. Calling-party-pays would seem
> to be a disincentive to junk callers and I could be much more free
> distributing that number. But there are many people who would never
> call me if it were going to cost them $0.50 US per minute. I would
> want to give them a free number to call.
That's easy, we just forward our home or office number. That way I
pick up the charges _when I want to_.
> One potential problem with calling-party-pays is that there is no
> price pressure. As a mobile subscriber I choose a calling plan to
> minimize my costs and the carriers compete for my business. As a
> caller to a mobile I have to accept the price I will be charged and
> have no way to shop for a better rate. I likely won't call.
Why ? Here we are all CPP and there is fierce competition between
different operators for the lowest landline-to-mobile calls.
> The calling-party-pays plans I have seen here have a per-minute rate
> 2-5 times the subscriber's rate.
Since many parts of the CPP world do not use the "included minutes"
plans, this is hard to compare. It is however certain that prices are
coming down al the time in CPP systems. Since we also only pay for
around half of the calls (outgoing) this also must be considered in
the comparison.
> It boils down to who's convenience is being served by the mobile
> phone. Ideally the extra charge for a mobile call would be paid by
> the party benefitting the most.
I find it convenient to be able to choose. During working hours, I
forward my work phone to my mobile. That way customers will reach me
without any extra charges. After hours, I'm only (maybe) available on
my mobile number. If they need to disturb me, they pay. Works good for
me.
> Of course, this perspective is from someone in an area where all local
> non-mobile calls have no per-minute charge.
Yes, that is a big difference, and the numbering plan is another
important issue.
Marcus AAkesson marcus.akesson@NO_SPAM_PLEASE_home.se
Gothenburg Callsigns: SM6XFN & SB4779
Sweden
>>>>>> Keep the world clean - no HTML in news or mail ! <<<<<<
From: Marcus AAkesson <marcus.akesson@no_spam_please.home.se>
Subject: Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 01:05:20 +0100
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 10:24:36 -0500, Mike Pollock <itsamike@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> By ROBERT GUY MATTHEWS
> Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
> March 2, 2000
> How many wood poles do woodpeckers peck, since woodpeckers do peck poles?
> In a typical midsize city, roughly 1,000 telephone poles have to be
replaced every year because birds -- and then rain -- cause them to
rot. That annoys utilities and sets them back about $200 a pole.
Poles ? In the Year 2000 they are debating poles ? I havn't seen any
new poles come up in my lifetime here. This house is in a residential
area built in 1939, and there is not a pole in sight. Out in the
countryside there are plenty, but hardle ever in any residential areas
planned after around 1930 ...
Marcus AAkesson marcus.akesson@NO_SPAM_PLEASE_home.se
Gothenburg Callsigns: SM6XFN & SB4779
Sweden
>>>>>> Keep the world clean - no HTML in news or mail ! <<<<<<
From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca>
Subject: Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 19:22:07 -0500
Jeremy Greene wrote:
> How can anyone in their right mind be debating what type of pole to
> use in a new residential development? Just bury the damn wires!
After the ice storm of 1998 in Montreal, there was much debate about Hydro
Quebec having the least amount of its distribution network underground (and
thus most exposed to weather).
Part of Hydro's response is that while the number of disruptions are
lessened, each disruption is more complex since locating the break is
difficult and requires digging up backyards (bringing digging
equipment to backyards etc is not easy sometimes).
Also, considering that stringing fiber to homes is something which
will begin soon, I am not sure it would be wise to do much digging up
now. Once the shakeout in telecom wiring has occured and we know
whether twisted pair , fiber or coax will go to homes, then perhaps it
becomes a worthy effort to bury cables.
As far as wooden poles being "natural" and "healthy", aren't they
treated with creosote or other nasty stuff ?
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 20:51:45 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: DoubleClick Cries "Uncle"
http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,12568,00.html
Every so often, bad PR actually affects company policy. DoubleClick
announced Thursday that it's holding off on linking peoples'
Web-surfing habits and online purchases with personal information like
their names and addresses. "I made a mistake," DoubleClick chief
executive Kevin O'Connor said, in a statement that was quoted across
the board.
O'Connor didn't say he'd never merge the two databases. He just said
his company would take it easy "until there is agreement between
government and industry on privacy standards." In other words, you
won't see DoubleClick execs laughing over a beer with folks from the
Electronic Privacy Information Center anytime soon.
Government investigations and privacy advocates put the squeeze on
DoubleClick over the last month, but they certainly weren't the only
ones. In a page-one story, John Schwartz of the Washington Post
described the 100,000-plus consumer complaints DoubleClick has
received, the private lawsuits against the company, and the decisions
by AltaVista and Kozmo.com to keep their visitors' data from
DoubleClick unless individuals give their permission.
As New York Times columnist Bob Tedeschi and the WSJ's Andrea Petersen
noted, DoubleClick's beleaguered stock rose on the announcement. The
L.A. Times suggested that strained relationships with clients inspired
the change in plans - and besides, DoubleClick was at least a year
away from being able to implement the program in question.
Privacy advocates seemed pleased but wary. The editor of Privacy Times
even told Tedeschi that DoubleClick's about-face might hurt the effort
to establish privacy standards. "By backing down now and doing the
right thing, they take a little air out of the balloon, and
unfortunately that could slow things down," he said. Sounds like the
privacy movement needs a new enemy. - Jen Muehlbauer
DoubleClick Beats a Retreat on Data Privacy
http://publish.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,12563,00.html?nl=mg
Web Firm Halts Profiling Plan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/business/A61991-2000Mar2.html
DoubleClick Reverses Course After Outcry on Privacy Issue
http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB952019045241548818.htm
(Paid subscription required.)
DoubleClick Backs off Web-Tracking Plan
http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/cth486.htm
DoubleClick Puts off Its Plan for Wider Use of Personal Data
http://www.nytimes.com/library/financial/columns/030300doubleclick-adcol.html
(Registration required.)
DoubleClick Backs Away From Linking Consumers to Data
http://www.sjmercury.com/svtech/columns/gillmor/docs/dg030300.htm
DoubleClick Cancels Plan to Link Net Users' Names, Habits
http://www.latimes.com/business/20000303/t000020658.html
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 20:32:20 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: On the Internet, Your Bank is Not Your Friend
Deposit This
On the Internet, your bank is not your friend
Hal Plotkin, Special to SF Gate
Wednesday, February 23, 2000
When the notorious bank robber Willie Sutton was finally apprehended, a
reporter asked him: "Mr. Sutton, can you tell us why you rob banks?"
Sutton's famous reply: "Because that's where they keep the money."
The same undeniably simple logic is behind a huge fight now brewing
between the already anachronistic banking industry and Internet
entrepreneurs who are trying to put more power in the hands of
consumers.
http://www.sfgate.com/technology/beat/
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 21:19:26 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Policy Post 6.06: Privacy Matters -- DoubleClick Doubles-Back,
http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp_6.06.shtml
CDT POLICY POST Volume 6, Number 6 March 3, 2000
`A BRIEFING ON PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES AFFECTING CIVIL LIBERTIES ONLINE
from THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY
CONTENTS:
(1) DoubleClick Puts Profiling on Hold; AltaVista Adopts Opt-In
(2) Next Steps: Raising Industry Standard through Consumer Action
(3) CDT Testifies on Privacy
(1) DoubleClick Puts Profiling on Hold; AltaVista Adopts Opt-In
In an important step for privacy, Internet advertiser DoubleClick announced
on March 2 that it will hold up plans to tie personally identifiable
information such as names and addresses to users' online surfing habits
until government and industry have reached an agreement on privacy rules
for the Internet.
CDT played a major role in alerting the public and policymakers to the
privacy pitfalls of DoubleClick's profiling plans. On February 1, CDT
started an online campaign, creating a Web site where Internet users could:
1) opt-out of DoubleClick; 2) write to DoubleClick's CEO to complain; and
3) write to Web sites that allowed DoubleClick to set cookies on their
viewers, seeking clarification of what personal data those sites were
sharing with DoubleClick. Over 100,000 people visited our DoubleClick
action site. On February 29, CDT along with the Privacy Rights
Clearinghouse, Consumer Action, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against
Defamation (GLAAD), and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a
Statement of Additional Facts and Grounds for Relief with the Federal Trade
Commission, seeking immediate action to prevent harm to consumer privacy as
a result of DoubleClick's data matching.
In the wake of CDT's online campaign and FTC filing, several prominent
businesses publicly distanced themselves from DoubleClick and reevaluated
their own privacy practices.
* Most notably, Internet search engine and portal AltaVista, DoubleClick's
largest partner, announced that it was adopting an "opt-in" policy for
personal information collected about the surfing habits of users registered
at its site.
* Intuit removed DoubleClick advertisements from the loan and mortgage
sections of its Quicken Web site after being notified that information
about users' salaries and debts were being transmitted to DoubleClick.
DoubleClick's announcement:
http://www.cdt.org/privacy/000302doubleclick.shtml
AltaVista's reply to CDT:
http://www.cdt.org/action/doubleclick/altavista.shtml
Our FTC filing:
http://www.cdt.org/testimony/000225ftcdcstatement.shtml
(2) Next Steps: Raising Industry Standard through Consumer Action
These recent developments signal an important shift in the privacy debate.
DoubleClick's decision to halt its plan to create fully identifiable
profiles of online users is testament to the growing and vocal consumer
privacy constituency online. These newly empowered Netizens can use the
technology to express their privacy concerns in the marketplace, and
companies are paying attention.
AltaVista's move to an "opt-in" privacy policy is a significant departure
from the industry norm and proves that Internet companies can respect
privacy and still provide free, innovative services to consumers. Intuit's
move to limit the flow of personal information about users to DoubleClick,
sets the stage for Web sites taking a more proactive approach to analyzing
the privacy implications of their business relationships.
This week's DoubleClick and AltaVista developments set an important
benchmark for other companies online. CDT will now turn its attention to
urging other companies to meet this standard.
* First, CDT is calling on all network advertisers to join DoubleClick and
not merge individuals' names and addresses with their surfing habits.
* Second, CDT is calling on the other search engines and portals to join
AltaVista in seeking prior customer approval (opt-in) before disclosing
personally identifiable information on subscribers.
* Third, we will continue to use the Internet to provide individuals with
timely alerts and online resources so that users can make their voices
heard with impact. To subscribe to CDT's Activist Network, go to:
http://www.cdt.org/join/
* Finally, CDT will continue to provide its "Operation Opt-Out" tools
helping consumers learn how to get off direct marketing, telemarketing,
online profiling and other lists http://optout.cdt.org, including
information about how to "opt-out" of DoubleClick.
(3) CDT Testifies on Privacy
In two separate Hill appearances this week, CDT spelled out its privacy
vision.
Testifying before a joint House-Senate hearing on February 29, CDT senior
staff counsel Jim Dempsey addressed the need for strong privacy protections
limiting government access to information. Responding to calls for
legislation in response to the denial of service attacks last month,
Dempsey stressed that good network security is the responsibility of the
private sector, not the government, and can be achieved without sacrificing
privacy or anonymity online. He pointed out how legal standards for
government surveillance are too weak, and urged Congress, if it adopts any
new legislation on computer crime or surveillance authorities, to keep it
narrow and to balance it with privacy enhancements.
In Senate testimony on the AOL-Time Warner merger on March 2, CDT Executive
Director Jerry Berman noted that the proposed merger highlights both the
increased risks for privacy problems as the Internet evolves, and the great
potential for self-regulatory efforts to enhance privacy protection. Both
AOL and Time Warner have access to significant amounts of personal data
about their subscribers. For AOL, this includes, for example, information
about online service subscribers, AOL.COM portal users, and ICQ and instant
messaging users. Time Warner has access to information about ranging from
cable subscriber usage to magazine subscriptions. The specter of the merged
companies pooling all of their information resources, and then mining those
resources for marketing and other purposes, should be cause for concern.
Fundamentally, however, the AOL Time Warner merger does not alter the
equation for a privacy solution. Protecting privacy on the Internet
requires a multi-pronged approach, Berman testified, that involves
self-regulation, technology, and legislation, whether or not the merger
occurs.
Dempsey's testimony:
http://www.cdt.org/security/000229judiciary.shtml
Berman's testimony:
http://www.cdt.org/testimony/000302berman.shtml
Detailed information about online civil liberties issues may be found at
http://www.cdt.org/.
This document may be redistributed freely in full or linked to
http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp_6.06.shtml.
Excerpts may be re-posted with prior permission of ari@cdt.org
Policy Post 6.06 Copyright 2000 Center for Democracy and Technology
From: Stephen Kaps <skaps@flash.net>
Reply-To: skaps@flash.net
Subject: Re: NXX by NPA
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 23:40:18 GMT
Organization: FlashNet Communications, http://www.flash.net
The list you desire is the LERG (Local Exchange Routing Guide?)
I found this as the first hit when I searched for LERG.
Nathan Stratton nathan@robotics.net wrote:
> A few months ago I was trying to put together a list of LERG switch codes.
> Many people on this list helped fill in the blanks, but there was still a
> large number of codes that I did not know. Even more people asked me where
> they could get such a list. Well I just got my copy (actually it looks like
> a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy) from Telcordia (Am I the only one
> who liked Bellcore better?). It is Telcordia (Bellcore) Practice BR
> 751-100-460 issue 3, April 1995 and only cost $10 from Telcordia.
Anyway, because so many people asked about it I wanted to post the info to
this list.
><>
Nathan Stratton Telecom & ISP Consulting
http://www.robotics.net nathan@robotics.net
Robert M. Bryant wrote:
> Do you know where I can get a list of NXX's by NPA or by City or State??
> Robert M. Bryant
> DNAE IBM Team
> 440 Hamilton, 12th. fl.
> White Plains, NY 10601
> (914) 397-8451
> Pager: 888-858-7243, pin 116852
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would be a humongous list to say
> the least, on several CD Roms, and printing out to hundreds of pages.
> And the list never ends, and is never entirely up to date. PAT]
From: Stanley Cline <sc1@roamer1.org>
Subject: Re: 7D Dialing Across NPA Boundaries
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 19:14:52 -0500
Organization: by area code and prefix (NPA-NXX)
Reply-To: sc1@roamer1.org
On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 03:47:43 GMT, Blake Droke <bdroke@sprintmail.com>
wrote:
[Memphis]
> Unlike Louisville, however, no 10D calling is allowed. Of course there
SWB allows 10d from West Memphis to Memphis ... or at least they did
last May. :)
> I noticed a potential problem in the Neustar database recently. 901-739
> has been assigned to a CLEC in 901, while 870-739 is assigned to
> Southwestern Bell and is a local call from Memphis 901. Might not be a
> problem since Tennessee is a toll alerting state. It depends on which
> rate center will get 901-739. If its in the Metro Memphis area, there
> will be a dialling conflict.
BellSouth Mobility in Chattanooga somehow got 423-937 (I don't recall
if it showed up in the NNAG/NIPC/etc. or if it was a translations
error for 423-987 or some other prefix assigned to BSM; calls from
Atlanta were correctly completed to 423-937, however, which would tend
to indicate that IXCs knew about it); Ringgold, GA, which is local to
Chattanooga, has 706-937. Needless to say, that got fixed quickly.
Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/
From: Steve Riner <mnhwyguy@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: 7D Dialing Across NPA Boundaries
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 18:12:09 -0600
Organization: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc.
Arthur L. Rubin <216-5888@mcimail.com> wrote in message
news:telecom20.4.1@telecom-digest.org...
> As an aside, has anyone suggested requiring the local phone companies
> to have permissive 11D dialing for calls within the same area code?
> I've been unable (as yet) to program my dialers (under Windows 3.1)
> to handle the 602/623/480 NPA split. (For those not familiar with the
> split, calls are 7D within each NPA, 10D between them,
> and 11D (with, I believe, some 10D exeptions near the border with 520)
> to other NPAs. All calls within those NPAs are local.
Cities local calling area (area codes 612/651/763/952 and even a
couple of exchanges within 507). While their dialing instructions
state "DO NOT" dial 1+ for FNPA local calls, 1+10D calls are not
charged long distance.
Steve Riner Columbia Heights MN
Explore Minnesota Highways of the Past and Present at:
http://www.frontiernet.net/~riner/main_hwy.htm
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 16:17:18 -0600
From: Grover C. McCoury III <grover@corvia.com>
Organization: Corvia Networks, Inc.
Subject: Re: Long Lines Bells
I dusted off my copy of the "Bell Labs Bible", Engineering and
Operations in the Bell System, and found the following definition:
The Long Lines Department of AT&T owns and operates long distance
transmission facilities and certain switching systems to provide
connections between operating companies and with foreign countries. Long
Lines, being an operating organization, is the largest part of AT&T, with
about 90% of all AT&T personnel.
AT&T was organized as follows:
AT&T
General Depts. Long Lines Dept
| | |
Western Electric | Bell Operating Companies(24 BOCs)
| |
| |
------ |
| |
Bell Telephone**
Laboratories
** - BTL is 50% owned by Western Electric and 50% owned by AT&T
Dean Forrest Wright wrote:
> Incidentally, the name Long Lines really meant exactly that. AT&T Long
> Lines was, with a few exceptions, responsible for carrying telephone
> calls which crossed state lines, with the local Bell Operating Company
> (i.e. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph) being responsible for
> carrying calls within a given state or related geographical area.
> Dean Forrest Wright, P.E. Telecommunications (Central Office
> Equipment) Engineer dean at imt dot net
/**********************************
Grover C. McCoury III
@ Corvia Networks, Inc.
physical: 212 Gibraltar Drive
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
audio: (408)752-0550 x128
electronic: grover@corvia.com
WWW: http://www.corvia.com
**********************************/
From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio)
Subject: Re: Long Lines Bells
Organization: Providence Network Partners
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 00:33:04 GMT
In article <telecom20.5.5@telecom-digest.org>, Goodwin, Fred
<goodwin@tri.sbc.com> says ...
> Question on a minor point: didn't the local BOCs own and operate the
> *intrastate* LD networks prior to Divestiture? I thought LL owned and
> operated only the AT&T *interstate* LD network, and that the BOCs had to
> spin off to LL their own intrastate, interLATA LD plant at Divestiture?
> If you're equating "long distance" to "interstate", then my point is
> moot.
Many moons ago I asked someone from New Englad Telephone why in state
toll rates were so ridiculously high. They explained that AT&T Long Lines
handled all in-state toll traffic. It looks like NET at the time didn't
have their own toll switches so they let AT&T rape the crap out of us.
On the master balance sheet they were all the same company though.
Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR
Trustee WE1RD
From: Smarty <jonsmarty@hotmail.com>
Subject: Internet Call Centers
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 02:43:42 GMT
Is anyone using or know anything about Internet Call Centers? What do you
recommend. Do you like what you are using? Etc. Etc.
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 20:29:40 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Did Consumer E-Commerce Happen Too Fast?
February 28, 2000
DIGITAL COMMERCE
By DENISE CARUSO
The latest entrant in the Internet economy's continuing game of
buzzword bingo is "business to business," predictably shortened to
"B2B."
B2B is just what the name implies: businesses selling to other
businesses, using the Internet to cut transaction costs and increase
efficiencies. It is a $1.76 billion market that, according to
Forrester Research, will reach more than $1 trillion in 2002.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/02/biztech/articles/28digi.html
End of TELECOM Digest V20 #11
Visit the Crazy Atheist Libertarian
Visit my atheist friends at Arizona Secular Humanists
Some strange but true news about the government
Some strange but real news about religion
Interesting, funny but otherwise useless news!