HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 11:12 EST
From: SKASS@drew.drew.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AT&T Public Phone 2000
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 746, Message 9 of 11

In Issue 745, Tony Harminc <TONY@VM1.MCGILL.CA> writes:

> You'll be tickled even pinker when you don't get the bill.

I made two short calls on a 2000 in late August, using my AT&T Calling
Card.  To my surprise, I received a bill from AT&T instead of a charge
in the AT&T section of my NJ Bell bill.  So far as I can tell, my
Reach Out America charges did not apply to the long-distance charge
portion of the bill.  I almost tossed the letter, thinking it was an
ad for some new service, until I noticed the first class postage.

Also worth noting was that I was charged $2.50 for terminal use (the
charge for one up-to-ten-minute period) even though I made two
separate calls.  I don't remember if I sequenced them with # or a New
Call button.


Steve Kass/ Math and CS/ Drew University
Madison NJ 07940/ 201 514 1187/ skass@drew.drew.edu
From: goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Centel of Florida Merging With "Sprint Corporation"
Date: 2 Oct 92 22:28:32 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 754, Message 1 of 13

In article <telecom12.753.5@eecs.nwu.edu>, isjjgcd@prism.gatech.edu
writes:

>  "Notice is hereby given that Centel Corporation and Sprint
> Corporation have entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger which,
> if consumated [sic], will indirectly transfer the majority operational
> control of Central Telephone Company of Florida to Sprint Corporation.
> Ok, I'll admit I have no idea whether the "Sprint Corporation"
> mentioned is the same as US Sprint, the IXC we all know and toward
> which some of us are ambivalent.  If it isn't, though, wouldn't the ad
> have made that clear?  If it is, what next?  Merger of AT&T with
> BellSouth?  I just don't get it.

Sprint was originally Southern Pacific Railroad Internal
Telecommunications, and began public services in the mid-1970s.  It
was then sold to GTE, who then sold part of it to United
Telecommunications, a major holding company for "independent"
(non-Bell) telcos.  GTE's interest kept dwindling, until last year
when UT bought the rest.  Then UT, whose local telco operations were
smaller than Sprint long distance, changed its corporate name to
Sprint Corp.  They still operate "United Telephone" in many states,
though.  And the LD operations are separate from the local ones.

So Centel's local telephone operations were bought by the United
system, which renamed itself Sprint last year.  BTW, the "small"
telephone company that serves Disney World, "Vista United Telephone",
is (or was) a joint venture of United (now Sprint Corp.) and Disney.


Fred R. Goldstein   goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com 
k1io             or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com   voice:+1 508 952 3274
Standard Disclaimer:  Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.
From: Bob_Frankston@frankston.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: U.S. Cable Television Re-Regulation
Date: 25 Sep 92 20:27:00 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 732, Message 5 of 8

Just because some TELECOM Digest readers are too elitist too tolerate
cable TV doesn't mean it isn't vital and useful.  Just because the
{National Enquirer} is not my idea of a vital information source
doesn't mean that the {New York Times} or the {Economist} aren't
useful and, perhaps, vital (ignoring their contributions to
landfills).

Current cable TV is a seriously flawed defacto monopoly.  While there
is useful programming selected by the local operators, there is much
else available that I cannot access. The cable system is also one
option for wide bandwidth communications.  I'm not sure how to expand
on the potential for cable but just dismissing it as mere mindrot is
missing the point.  Just like those who dismissed the telephone
because it was more polite to walk over to your neighbor rather than
telephoning.


[Moderator's Note: You mention the {National Enquirer}, but IMHO, they
do not hold a candle to {World Weekly News} which is the one I read
for the honest and thorough reporting missing in my competitor Kay
Graham's two ragsheets {The Washington Post} and News Weak.  PAT]
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1992 13:27:44 CDT
From: Andrew C. Green <acg@hermes.dlogics.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Quick New York Telephone Repair (Sort Of ...)
Reply-To: acg@hermes.dlogics.com
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 759, Message 4 of 14

Our Esteemed Moderator notes:

> I'm one of those people who when they see or experience a pay
> phone out of order actually calls it in to repair service. It
> is interesting to go past a week later and see how many of the
> called in repairs have actually been done and how many of the 
> pay phones are still out of order.  PAT]

Hmph. In this city (Chicago) it seems like the repairs will still be
un-done a week later, to judge from my attempts. After three or four
calls to 611 over about three weeks, I gave up. Why don't we all get
together on this and have another attempt?!

It's a pedestal-mounted pay phone on the sidewalk outside 110 North
Wacker Drive downtown. It is the only pay phone in sight on this very
important and busy downtown street. For months it has gone unrepaired;
its handset and cord are gone. Its phone number is (312) 641-9644.

My first call to Repair Service got me a prompt promise to fix it by
the close of business the next day. A week later, they told me they
couldn't find any record of the order, and resubmitted it.  About a
week after that, I pressed a bit further.

"Sir, I don't show any listing for that number; it's been disconnected."

"Well, of course it's disconnected; parts of it are missing."

"It's not a pay phone in service, so I would have to submit it as a
Non-standard Request [or some such term]."

"Fine! Let's do that, then ..."

Of course, nothing happened. Perhaps the collective power of TELECOM
Digest readers can get some action. ("We'd better fix the phone on
Wacker Drive ... people in Los Angeles are calling to complain!")


Andrew C. Green
Datalogics, Inc.      Internet: acg@dlogics.com
441 W. Huron          UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!acg
Chicago, IL  60610    FAX: (312) 266-4473


[Moderator's Note: Well, I just now dialed it and 641-9644 *is* a
disconnected number. That may have not been the correct number for the
phone in the first place. If repair has no record of the phone, they
have no way to submit a request for service on it. :(    PAT]
Date: 5 Oct 1992 17:36:52 GMT
From: deglop@louie.EEAP.CWRU.Edu (Jacob DeGlopper)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular Interception in Private Talk
Organization: Dept. of Electrical Engineering, CWRU, Cleve. OH
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 762, Message 15 of 16

In article <telecom12.760.3@eecs.nwu.edu> louie@sayshell.umd.edu
(Louis A. Mamakos) writes:

> Why assert that conversations cannot easily be followed between cells?
> It is not as if the mechanism for handoffs is secret; it is done in
> band and someone with sufficient motivation should easily be able to
> decode and interpret this information.  While its true that Joe Blow
> with a scanner won't be able to, it is by no means difficult enough to
> to give anyone a sense of security.

Indeed, "someone" makes a suitcase for just this purpose.  The version
I saw contains five AR-2500 scanners controlled by a laptop computer;
the laptop monitors the control channels and switches the others to
recieve a desired conversation as it moves around.  The price tag for
the system was in the neighborhood of $10,000.


   Jacob DeGlopper, EMT-A, Wheaton (MD) Volunteer Rescue Squad
      -- CWRU Biomedical Engineering - jrd5@po.cwru.edu --
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 09:51:25 -0600
From: rickie@trickie.ualberta.ca (Richard Nash)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Manufacturers of Phone Patches Wanted
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 762, Message 1 of 16

> I'm developing a product for stutterers that will process speech when
> talking on the telephone.  To connect the processor to the phone, I

> All I need is audio in and audio out.  My processor unit will have
> volume controls for both.  I suppose I should have something to keep
> the outgoing level below -20dBm, as I understand that the phone
> company doesn't want levels over this.

> Lastly, if I sell more than 20-30 of these, I'll have a complete
> circuitboard designed with a phone patch on it.  If it connects to the
> handset jack, not the phone line, can I avoid FCC Part 68
> certification?  I understand that certification costs about $20,000.
> Will the phone patch circuit be substantially different?

Might I suggest modifying a cheap telephone which could have a couple
of RCA or similar jacks mounted onto it?  Find someone locally who
knows how to properly piggy-back onto the network components to gain
access to the correct signals.

I had performed this operation on a friend's Meritor (tm) keyset phone
he uses in his recording studio business.  Amazingly, the trans-hybrid
loss was phenomenaly good. Signals could be fed from the studio
microphone, into the phones' line, and at the same time, the studio
performer could hear the distant telephone user via the return path.
No feedback!  Total parts count = four. I used two non-polarized 2
mf., capacitors and two bantam jacks (so that the console patch bay
patch-cords could be utilised).
 

Richard Nash    Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8
UUCP:        trickie!rickie@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 06:14:00 GMT
From: philippa@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Philippa Morrissey)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Thanks For All Your Replies
Organization: AOTC - CSSC
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 738, Message 13 of 14

I wanted to thank everybody who sent me info on telcos in Carolina,
especially Keith Harrison. The info really helped me present a
convincing arguement to management. Thanks again.


Philippa Morrissey - AOTC      MHSnet: philippa@cssc-syd.tansu.oz.au
Advanced Network Products      Snail : 320 Pitt St, Sydney 2000.
Customised Software Solutions    or PO Box A226, Sydney South 2000, Australia.
     Centre - Sydney           Phone : +61 (0)2 395 3467   Fax: +61 2 395 3225
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 22:44:41 GMT
From: GeraldR@sunfish.ratsys.com (Gerald Ruderman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Telcos in Carolina
Organization: Rational Systems, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 735, Message 2 of 13

In article <telecom12.729.6@eecs.nwu.edu> rsiatl!turner@rsiatl.UUCP
writes:

> I suspect GTE is a pretty major player in the Carolinas as well.  I
> will refrain from farther comments on this as I have had much better
> experence with GTE in Alabama than most CDT readers.

I believe that the local carrier for Research Triangle Park is GTE. I
was not impressed with GTE's local service in Durham/RTP when I lived
there from 86-89.


Gerald Ruderman    geraldr@ratsys.com
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 12:16:59 -0700
From: edg@netcom.com (Ed Greenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Non-Air Air-Phone
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 757, Message 10 of 13

I think they were credit card operated cellular.  I saw this on the
Port Jefferson-Bridgeport ferry, but I must have missed it on the
Manitowoc-Ludington Ferry.

Too bad, I had a call to make.  Oh well.


Ed Greenberg 		| Home: +1 408 283 0511 | edg@netcom.com
P. O. Box 28618		| Work: +1 408 764 5305 | DoD#: 0357
San Jose, CA  95159	| Fax:  +1 408 764 5003 | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 08:36:54 EDT
From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Telco Notes From Maryland
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 740, Message 3 of 9

I've just returned from spending a week in the Columbia and Laurel, MD
areas while attending a school and stayed at the Maryland Inn (Best
Western) in Laurel, MD.

The in-room phone service was decent with the following noted:

Default LD carrier was AT&T.  Dialing out was 8-1-NPA-number with the
cost added to the room charge + 25 cents.

Equal access was provided via 8-10XXX-NPA-number.

LD carrier via 8-0-NPA-number was Property Technologies, LTD; 6505
Dickens Place; Richmond, Va. 23230.

There was a 50 cent charge for local calls (8-1-number).

800 calls were free.

The payphones in the motel were owned by C&P and I noticed that most
of the payphones in the area were owned by them also; I'm not sure
about the latter since I saw only one that wasn't and it was in
downtown Laurel.

Payphones on the New Jersey and Delaware turnpikes were owned by the
respective major phone companies (NJ Bell and C&P respectively).

The payphones in the school (Sun Microsystems, Inc.) were C&P owned
and followed the same rules as the payphones as in the motel.
Unfortunately, I didn't note them since they were in a high traffic
area leading to the motel's bar and restaurant.  In the school, I was
too busy between classes to take the time and the phones were in use
anyway by other students.

Overall, the telco costs that I ran up on two days (Sunday and Friday)
amounted to $7.00 (US) mostly due to no one being home when I called
and these incurred charges of $0.88 (US) each.  I didn't mind spending
the money even if it incurred charges since I was calling home and
spending other money on things I don't remember buying now.


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 08:10:22 PDT
From: allyn@sleepy.boeing.com (Mark Allyn)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cable TV Re-Regulation
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 732, Message 6 of 8

There is a decent article about this mess in the Thursday Sept. 24
edition of the {Wall Street Journal}.


Mark
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 01:59:21 GMT
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: What Does a DS-3 Circuit Terminate at?
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Chicago, IL
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 764, Message 3 of 4

In article <telecom12.747.6@eecs.nwu.edu> mmt@redbrick.com (Maxime
Taksar) writes:

> In article <telecom12.739.3@eecs.nwu.edu>, Peter M. Weiss <PMW1@psuvm.
> psu.edu> writes:

>> According to the _Link Letter_ March/April 1992 - Vol. 5 No.1, lead
>> article "T3 Network Nears Full Production":

>>       "Merit obtains NSFNET backbone services from ANS which
>>       provides a major national network that operates at T3 speeds
>>       using circuits provided by MCI and central networking
>>       technology based on the IBM RS/6000 (TM)."

> I stand corrected.  Aparently my information is outdated and ANS has
> now upgraded to rs/6000s.  In any case, I'm certainly glad to hear it!

Considering that CISCO can now terminate T3s with HSSI interfaces, are
you >sure< you are glad of that?

I have to wonder which is the better box for this application.  It
would be interesting to see some comparative statistics in terms of
backplane capacity, packet switch speeds, latency, etc.


Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
Date: Sun,  4 Oct 92 11:57:21 EDT
From: ers@cblpe.att.com (Eugene R Schroeder)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Exchange Codes Near Area Code Boundaries
Organization: AT&T
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 760, Message 4 of 12

In article <telecom12.755.2@eecs.nwu.edu> Philip Gladstone <philipg@
onsett.com> writes:

 <stuff deleted>

> This all implies to me that these exchange codes are allocated in each
> area code, and somehow all point to the same exchange. Further, it
> seems that allocating new exchange codes in this area would use up
> exchange codes in multiple area codes. I realise that in that part of
> the country, there is probably a lot of free number space -- but is
> this a typical approach?

This sounds like "protected codes," an arrangement where you can call
across an NPA boundary with 7d dialing.  The term "protected" means
that the NXX code cannot be assigned in the caller's NP, to prevent
ambiguity.  This was done when there is a community of interest split
by an NPA boundary, to simplify dialing.

It does consume NXXs, though, and I believe that Bellcore recommends
againt establishing any more of these.


Gene
From: theriaul@mdd.comm.mot.com (Roger Theriault)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: The Round Table
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:53:33 GMT
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division, Vancouver, CANADA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 751, Message 11 of 14

In a message of <22 Sep 92> by Randy Gellens, he notes that:

> Saw the pilot of the new series {The Round Table} last Friday.  In
> one scene, someone in Georgetown (in the Washington, DC area) makes a
> call from a pay phone.  The pay phone was clearly a GTE style phone,
> not a Bell type, even though the DC area is served by C&P, a Bell
> company.

I haven't seen the show, but our local papers report that this series
is shot here in Vancouver. Possibly it was a BCTel payphone.  As for
the cruiser's plates, anyone's guess ... BC plates are white with blue
letters/numbers (three letters + three numbers for all cars) and our
provincial flag in the middle, and a date sticker (like OCT 92)
centered along the bottom on the rear plate. Vanity plates all have a
special trees and mountains background. But any local antique store can
supply the film crew with any variety of license plate, and quite
possibly a rental phone booth too!


Roger Theriault    Internet: theriaul@mdd.comm.mot.com
UUCP: {uw-beaver,uunet}!van-bc!mdivax1!theriaul
CompuServe: 71332,730 (not too often)
I am not a spokesman for Motorola or anyone else besides myself.
From: Bob_Frankston@frankston.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Bargain COCOT - Flat Rate LD!
Date: 26 Sep 92 23:52:00 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 739, Message 9 of 17

Last year (or before?) I sent in a number of messages on the local
COCOT that trying to compete on price with NET.  Their frustration is
that they can't compete on local calls since NET charges $.10 for the
calls but COCOTs can't get that rate.  This appears to be a legitimate
attempt to compete.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 11:31:02 -0400
From: Eric M. Carroll <eric@cathaus.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AT&T Public Phone 2000 
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 746, Message 10 of 11

>  You'll be tickled even pinker when you don't get the bill.

Well, I can verify that. I just got my Bell Canada bill, and lo! no
extra data use charges. I was wondering what had happened to them.


Eric Carroll	University of Toronto Computing Services
		Network Development
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:57:20 GMT
From: exulme@exu.ericsson.se (Michael Englund, T-TDT, x0996)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Andrews Company in Chicago; Information Needed
Reply-To: exulme@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 744, Message 14 of 14

I heard about a company called Andrews, which is supposed to be based
in the Chicago area. They sell satellite dishes and HF cable etc.
Does anybody know more about this company? Do they have a phone
number, address etc.? What else do they do?


Michael L. Englund
Ericson Network Systems, Software Verification Techniques
Richardson, TX  75081, USA
Internet:  exulme@exu.ericsson.se   phone:  +1-214-997-0996


[Moderator's Note: Have you tried 312/708-555-1212 to see if they have
a telephone listing?   PAT]
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 02:31:34 EDT
From: andrew m. boardman <amb@cs.columbia.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Funny 800 Number Spelling
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 752, Message 2 of 15

John Higdon writes:

> I know of no number-issuing entity, LEC or IEC, who will refuse to
> give out any number you want if it is available.

New York Telephone.  An associate once went to fairly great lengths to
try to get 914.234.5678, to no avail.  It was neither in use nor in a
reserved block -- through the standard rep and N levels of
supervisors, it was a staunch "we know what's good for you -- you
can't have it."  The only thing I can think of is that it is such an
often wrong number that it was trapped at other 914 switches, but it
later turned out that this was not the case.  (The individual was,
BTW, local to the 234 exchange, and the eventual number received was
indeed in 234 -- but not -5678 ...)


andrew boardman     amb@cs.columbia.edu


[Moderator's Note: Although not in a 'reserved block' it still might
have been reserved for a few months by some specific individual. That
can be done here. Or possibly it had recently been disconnected and
not yet available for re-assignment.  PAT]
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:54:44 GMT
From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: The Smallest US Telephone Company
Organization: AT&T
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 752, Message 15 of 15

In article <telecom12.751.6@eecs.nwu.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu
(Gabe M Wiener) writes:

> In article <telecom12.748.5@eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Moderator notes:

>> the smallest phone company however. There is (or was) a guy in
>> Colorado who owned a telco with *eight* subscribers. 

> How does he qualify as a telco per se?  How does this differ from any
> organization that buys its own PBX?  

To which PAT answers:

> [Moderator's Note: I think he qualifies as a telco instead of a 'PBX'
> because he has several users who are not associated with each other
> through any common affinity group, i.e. not all of the same employer;
> not all of the same residential premises, etc. 

Additionally, in some (or many) states, one would have to register
with the Public Service Commission (or equivalent) as a "registered
common carrier", indicating that one is willing to abide by all the
laws and regulations which apply in the state to telecommunications
common carriers.

Depending on state regulations, one may also be required to file
tariffs, etc.