"Ole J. Jacobsen" <ole@csli.stanford.edu> (05/29/91)
Folks, I am trying to convince Cellular One here in the Bay Area that they need to start accepting "canonical numbers" from cellular phones in order to be in compliance with generally accepted industry standards. (I've heard that there is even an IEA recommendation for this.) If you can help me put forward my case I'd be grateful. By "canonical numbers" I mean 10 digit numbers of the form: (Area Code) prefix-number, e.g., (415) 962-2599. Dialling such a number should *always* work, even if you are in your "home" area code, i.e. in 415 in this case. When I first got my phone about three years ago, everything worked just fine, canonical numbers could be stored in memory and "dialled" (sent to the MTSO by means of the S(p)END button), regardless of whether the call was for within 415 or not. When Pac*Bell introduced 1+ dialling for long distance calls, Cellular One decided in their infinite wisdom to follow suit, and changed the dialling procedure accordingly. So, now you have to dial 1 202 555-1212 or whatever. They forgot (or so it seems) to enforce it for "local" calls, so until recently you could still call a 415 number using canonical style dialing: 415-xxx-yyyy. Then recently, they discovered this "hole" and now you can *only* dial "local" calls using seven digits: xxx-yyyy. While I can sort of understand their idea that "it should work just like a regular phone" the trouble is that you cannot store numbers in memory any more and use the phone while travelling. I am trying to get them to accept canonical dialling *AS WELL AS* their current silly scheme, but so far I have not had much luck finding anyone who even understands what I am talking about. Some of the answers I have received so far include: "All our calls are routed through Pac*Bell, so we have to follow Pac*Bell's dialling procedures!" "We do not have any plans to market the dialling procedure you requested at this time." "All of our switches are programmed from Toronto, thus you can't talk to the guy in charge of switch programming." Since cellular systems employ pre-origination dialling, i.e., the entire number is sent to the switch before any connection is made, then it is clearly a small matter of programming to make this work correctly, or is it not? Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report Interop, Inc., 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100, Mountain View, CA 94040, Phone: (415) 941-3399 FAX: (415) 949-1779 Email: ole@csli.stanford.edu Direct: (415) 962-2515
John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> (05/30/91)
"Ole J. Jacobsen" <ole@csli.stanford.edu> writes: > I am trying to convince Cellular One here in the Bay Area that they > need to start accepting "canonical numbers" from cellular phones in > order to be in compliance with generally accepted industry standards. When I read your post, I reached over to my GTE Mobilnet-served handheld and dialed '408 723-1395'. It worked just fine from my 408 mobile number. > but so far I have not had much luck finding anyone who even > understands what I am talking about. Some of the answers I have > received so far include: > "All our calls are routed through Pac*Bell, so we have to follow > Pac*Bell's dialling procedures!" Since Pacific Telesis is a major owner of Cellular One, this could be somewhat truthful. Interestingly enough, however, GTE seems to have no problem providing the dialing scheme you describe, even though its calls are "routed through Pac*Bell" just like Cellular One's. > "We do not have any plans to market the dialling procedure you > requested at this time." So it is a matter of marketing? Is everything "marketing driven" these days? Does it have to be salable to exist? > "All of our switches are programmed from Toronto, thus you can't > talk to the guy in charge of switch programming." That's a good one. I guess if the programmers are actually in Toronto, there are no telephone circuits there so it would be impossible to talk to them. On the other hand, GTE's switches are programmed from Houston and I have talked to programmers for that company. > Since cellular systems employ pre-origination dialling, i.e., the > entire number is sent to the switch before any connection is made, > then it is clearly a small matter of programming to make this work > correctly, or is it not? Obviously, since GTE seems to have no trouble. Your post has served as a great example as to why I left Cellular One for GTE Mobilnet. GTE hides its Houston base very well and comes off as a local operation that is actually interested and concerned about customer satisfaction with every aspect of the service. When I have had concerns and questions, not only did I speak to people who gave me concise and correct information, but in many cases there were follow up calls and local numbers were given to me in case I had additional comments or questions. Frankly, I think it might be worth your while to switch. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
"John R. Covert 05-Jun-1991 1446" <covert@covert.enet.dec.com> (06/05/91)
> Now the curious question is why Cellular One's switches would be > programmed here. The only switch maker I know in Toronto is Northern > Telecom. Or is it perhaps that Cellular One is owned by a Toronto > based company ? Cantel (the nation-wide "A" carrier) is into all > sorts of other technical ventures. Perhaps they're the culprit. Your guess that Cantel is somehow involved may be right on the mark. As was reported elsewhere, Bay Area Cellular has recently converted to an Ericsson (correctly spelled with the double "s") switch. Cantel is the largest single user of Ericsson switches, and may be providing the programming -- or Ericsson may have an office in Toronto where the programming is done. It seems to be the case throughout Cantel that local calls must be dialled without a "1", and I wonder why Cantel subscribers don't complain about the same problem of not being able to use repertory dialling when travelling. Someone asked about new features that Ericsson switches may provide: Cantel customers are able to be reached regardless of where they are, coast to coast in Canada, as well as in locations in the U.S. that are Ericsson switches directly linked to Cantel, without doing anything at all to indicate that they are in a new system. In addition, all their custom calling features, including three-way calling, call-forwarding, and call-waiting, continue to work wherever they go. The locations currently linked to Cantel are: Pittsburgh, Johnstown and Erie, Pa., Wheeling, W. Va., Albany, Rochester, and Buffalo, N.Y., Detroit, Ann Arbor, Flint, Grand Rapids, Muskegon, and Saginaw, Mich., Toledo and Lima, Ohio, Jacksonville, Daytona, Orlando, Tampa, St. Petersburg, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, and Miami, Fla. All the "A" systems in Washington and Oregon are in the process of being linked; they work at the moment if your Cantel number is a British Columbia number, and will work for all Cantel numbers within a few months. Presumably other Ericsson systems will be linked to Cantel (and to each other) as time goes on. Next time I travel in these areas, I'll have the option (and the need to decide) to use either my NYNEX number and Follow-Me-Roaming or my Cantel number and Call-Following. Of course, IS-41 is supposed to make all this possible so that all systems everywhere get interconnected, but the Judge Greene problem still exists for any cellular companies owned by Baby Bells -- and this includes those Cellular Ones owned by Southwestern Bell, or by PacTel, or by U.S. West. Cellular One in San Francisco (Bay Area Cellular) is a partnership of PacTel, McCaw, and one other minority owner. john
Steve Forrette <forrette@cory.berkeley.edu> (06/07/91)
In article <telecom11.407.5@eecs.nwu.edu> Ole J Jacobson writes: > I am trying to convince Cellular One here in the Bay Area that they > need to start accepting "canonical numbers" from cellular phones in > order to be in compliance with generally accepted industry standards. > (I've heard that there is even an IEA recommendation for this.) If you > can help me put forward my case I'd be grateful. > By "canonical numbers" I mean 10 digit numbers of the form: > <10 digits without a preceeding 1> > I am trying to get them to accept canonical dialling *AS WELL AS* > their current silly scheme, but so far I have not had much luck > finding anyone who even understands what I am talking about. Some of > the answers I have received so far include: "All our calls are > routed through Pac*Bell, so we have to follow Pac*Bell's dialling > procedures!" This has long been a sore point for me as well. When did the most recent change occur? Eleven-digit dialing for local calls worked for me until I moved form the Bay Area just two weeks ago. I had made several attempts to find out why ten digit dialing was not allowed for long distance calls, and got nowhere each time. They would mostly compare it to regular phones, and say it works just like them, so why should I complain? "Pacific Bell requires it, so that's why!" I would offer that Pacific Bell does not allow ten digit dialing of local calls, but it worked on their system, so the MTSO had to be capable of reformatting numbers before handing them off to Pacific Bell. Additionally, I brought up the fact that all the other cellular systems in California (and elsewhere) allow ten digit dialing, even though the local companies that serve them require eleven digits. Of course, I got nowhere. They either didn't understand those points, or just ignored them, going back to the "Pacific Bell requires it" argument. The thing that really annoys me is not that the reps don't know much about the technology, but rather that they can't reason things out based on evidence presented to them. So, I would say that you'll just have to live with it. Part of the reason may be that Pacific Bell owns a substantial minority of Cellular One of SF, and doesn't want anybody getting fancy ideas about ten digit long distance (or, heaven forbid, LOCAL) dialing. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu