TELECOM Digest Mon, 6 Jun 94 15:25:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 275 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T to be Held Accountable? (bkron@netcom.com) Re: AT&T to be Held Accountable? (Clifton T. Sharp) Re: British Call Forwarding in 1960s (Alan Wright) Re: British Call Forwarding in 1960s (Philip J. Tait) Re: Largest Calling Areas (Bob Goudreau) Re: Largest Calling Areas (Dave O'Heare) Re: Largest Calling Areas (Peter Campbell Smith) Re: S-s-s-stuttering Dial Tone Detection (B.J. Guillot) Re: S-s-s-stuttering Dial Tone Detection (Steven Bradley) Re: S-s-s-stuttering Dial Tone Detection (John Harris) Re: "Line in use" Circuit For Phone (John Lundgren) Re: FCC Seeks Further Comments on 0+ Call Routing (Wes Leatherock) Best Way to Get Many (~50) Phone Lines? (Dick St.Peters) 711 in Atlanta (Les Reeves) 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 GEnie. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available at no charge 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: 708-329-0571 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. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, 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. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bkron@netcom.com (Kronos) Subject: Re: AT&T to be Held Accountable? Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 03:33:03 GMT aa377@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ken Kopin) writes: > Can AT&T actually get away with this kind of misleading advertising? I always consider such advertising as "image advertising" - like those ads by the Plastic Manufacturers saying how much better it is to use paper plates and throw them away in the National Park's "recycling dumpster." If you spend enough for television ads, then the networks become dependent on the income and are less likely to run stories which portray you in a negative light. > ... AT&T ... now actively competing with Ameritech/Illinois Bell for > local traffic between the 312/708 area codes. When I was talking to our AT&T Account Executive here in Seattle last week, she informed me that, as of about six months ago, they could now provide intralata toll here in LATA 674. The rates she quoted me were slightly less than what the LEC, US West, charges. But when I tried to verify her figures by calling the AT&T "00" operator, I found the toll guides the operator had showed substantially higher rates! I presumed that, since I hadn't heard any advertising about this new alternative to local toll traffic by AT&T (or any other IEC, for that matter), the operator was probably right and the AE was ... wrong. By the way, she said the same thing about having to prepend AT&T's 10288 access code. ------------------------------ From: clifto@indep1.chi.il.us (Clifton T. Sharp) Subject: Re: AT&T to be Held Accountable? Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 17:24:25 GMT In article PAT writes: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Just this morning I heard a radio commercial > saying AT&T was now actively competing with Ameritech/Illinois Bell for > local traffic between the 312/708 area codes. If local calls here are to > points (relative to the calling party) in the 'C' or 'D' bands (the most > expensive of the local intra-lata calls here) then according to the message > on the radio, AT&T will be less expensive. The commercial said one will > save 'up to twenty percent' on those calls by prepending 10288 (or actually > 'one-oh-ATT' was the way it was phrased in the commercial) to the dialing > string. This will be interesting to test out. If any Digest readers in > the 312/708 area routinely make calls to far-away local points (what would > be a 'C' or 'D' band call for you) then you might want to test out AT&T's > claims. Please note that 1+ from/to 312/708 still defaults to local service > via Illinois Bell. You need to do it 10288 + 1 +. Let us know. PAT] I've heard the commercial myself (and think I saw one on TV), and it raises a little curiosity in my mind. I've been trying hard to figure out what actually happens, WRT billing, when I make a long-distance call. My copy of the V-H coordinates in hand from the current Illinois Commerce Commission tariff filing, I see two tables, one called "V and H coordinates of S.A. Centers" and the other "V and H Coordinates of Exchange Rate Centers". The former (in Part 6, Section 1, "Series Channel Service") lists all the various CO names in Chicago (e.g., Pullman, Irving, Lawndale, even one called "105"); the latter (in Part 4, "Long Distance Telecommunications Service") lists one V-H set for Chicago, apparently at Canal. I get the impression that that one item on the latter list is the LD gateway for the entire city of Chicago, which makes me wonder whether someone calling from Pullman to Irving (which looks enough like a "C" band call that I'll treat it as such for this discussion) wouldn't be paying MORE for the call by calling through AT&T, or any LD carrier for that matter; seems to me they'd be charged "message units" for the B (or C?) call to Canal, plus the AT&T charge for the call itself. This, of course, wouldn't be visible to anyone who's not monitoring every call and every second spent on the phone and tabulating "message units"; all we'd find out is whether the AT&T charge (not counting the Pullman-Canal connection) would be cheaper than the Pullman- Irving connection. Of course, it could be that the LD call is routed through the Calumet City "Exchange Rate Center", which is closer and (without doing the math) looks like an A call. But we all know that if Chicago is tariffed through Canal, they probably wouldn't do a thing like that. Or, it could even be that the tariff specifies that LD access is not billed by Ameritech ... naaaaah. (I don't have and can't afford a copy of the entire tariff; all I got was the V-H tables and a page on mileage measurement.) Cliff Sharp WA9PDM clifto@indep1.chi.il.us ------------------------------ From: awright@gucis.cit.gu.edu.au (Alan Wright) Subject: Re: British Call Forwarding in 1960s Organization: Griffith University, CIT. Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 04:03:04 GMT Andrew C. Green writes: > Randall Gellens (RANDY@MPA15AB.mv-oc.Unisys.COM) writes: >> He picks up his phone [...] and dials three digits. He says >> "Operator? This is WHitehall xxxx. My name is John Steed. I will >> be away for the next three weeks. Please forward my calls to the >> usual number." >> What sort of call-forwarding was offered by British Telecom in the >> 1960s? > At the risk of over-analyzing a fictional scene, I get the impression > he wasn't speaking to the telephone company operator, but to some sort > of government operator at the other end of a private line. I base this > conclusion on the fact that he dialed only three digits (I would have > expected contemporary numbers in the London area to be at least five), > and referred to his own number as "Whitehall", an inspired (if not > fictitious) choice for a British government phone network prefix. Had > he called whatever the local equivalent of 611 was (for repair or some > other service), I don't think he would have addressed the other party > as "Operator". The UK equivalent of 611 is 192. All UK numbers in the big cities, (London, Manchester, etc.), were made up of an exchange name, followed by four digits. You dialed the first three letters followed by the four digits, (eg CHO 1234, for Chorlton 1234), Only local calls were self dialed then. Later the letters were replaced by numbers, (eg CHO was replaced by 881). The Operator was obtained by dialing 0, (later changed to 100); this change happened during the late 60's/early 70's. However London, (as the capital), was always the first to get the new technology, (dial 100), and therefore the operator would offer the govenment, (as their boss), special MANUAL call forwarding for long distance (trunk) calls. In those days the Post Office ran the telephone system, not British Telecom, (which was invented to allow the option of selling off the phone system, and this was done in the 1980's). Al ------------------------------ From: pjt@pelab.allied.com (Philip J. Tait) Subject: Re: British Call Forwarding in 1960s Date: 6 Jun 1994 19:42:55 GMT Organization: AlliedSignal Engines Reply-To: pjt@pelab.allied.com (Philip J. Tait) 100 was the number to reach the operator after STD was introduced in the 1960s. > and referred to his own number as "Whitehall", an inspired (if not > fictitious) choice for a British government phone network prefix. WHItehall was a valid London "exchange", as I recall. Philip J. Tait AlliedSignal Engines, Phoenix, Az +1 602 231 7104 GED::B12635 pjt@pelab.allied.com tait@venus.research.allied.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 12:02:34 -0400 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: Largest Calling Areas brendan@mpce.mq.edu.au (Brendan Jones) writes: > In article telecom14.250.3@eecs.nwu.edu, johns@scroff.UK (John Slater) > wrote: >> I believe Greater London is the largest geographic calling area in >> the world. > Then you believe mistakenly! Australia has many calling areas larger > than this. Much *much* larger! > The largest calling area in Australia is the (089) zone which covers > all of the Northern Territory and then some.... Unless I'm mistaken about how Australian calls are billed, you're completely missing John's point. He's not bragging about the size of *area codes* (indeed, Greater London is the densest node of population in the UK and requires two area codes now). Rather, I infer that by "calling areas" he means "the geographic area to which one can make those calls billed at the lowest rate". In the US, we would probably say "local calling area" -- the region in which residential customers can make free calls (for most of the US) or calls metered at the cheapest rate (for those unfortunate areas that have local measured service). The bragging rights for largest local calling area in the US have been debated before in TELECOM Digest, although I don't recall who won. (I do remember someone saying that the local calling area for the Atlanta, Georgia region was something like 50 to 80 miles [80 to 130 km] in diameter.) Of course, most North American area codes are much larger than local calling areas; sparsely populated western states and Canadian provinces usually have but a single area code each. Indeed, Alaska (area code 907) is geographically larger than the NT. Area codes 413 and 819 together cover Canada's vast Northwest and Yukon Territories, not to mention all of Alberta and a chunk of Quebec. And there are probably Russian area codes in eastern and northern Siberia that dwarf even these examples. Now, is it really true that a call from anywhere in the Northern Territory to anywhere else in the NT is always billed at anything close to the same rate? I.e., that a call down the block within Darwin costs the about the same as a call from Darwin to some deep outback town? If so, I'll concede that you are indeed comparing apples to apples. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 11:31:03 -0400 From: doheare@jetform.com (Dave O'Heare) Subject: Re: Largest Calling Areas You know, I would have thought that Inmarsat was the largest single calling area :-) Dave O'Heare doheare@jetform.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your humor is noted, but see the earlier letter in this issue as to the way we are defining things. I suppose to use your criteria, 'area code' 800 would be the largest area. PAT] ------------------------------ From: campbellsm@lish.logica.com (Peter Campbell Smith) Subject: Re: Largest Calling Areas Organization: Logica, London Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 14:20:52 GMT In article , brendan@macadam.mpce.mq.edu.au (Brendan Jones) wrote: > In article telecom14.250.3@eecs.nwu.edu, johns@scroff.UK (John Slater) > wrote: >> I believe Greater London is the largest geographic calling area in the world. > Then you believe mistakenly! Australia has many calling areas > larger than this. Much *much* larger! I presume the original writer meant the largest number of people or phones in a local calling area defined by a geographical area. By 'local' he meant (referring to the original post) the area within which all calls are charged at the local rate, which may not be the same as those having the same dialling code. The resident population of the local calling area in London must be around eight million. I don't know, but I would doubt that this is a record, since several third world cities have much larger populations and I might guess that they do not all have phone systems which divide the city into several charging zones. London might win, however, on number of phones or exchange lines, though I wouldn't bank on possibly Tokyo or New York City (212) beating it. Does anyone have the facts? Around 20 years ago Atlanta claimed to have the largest local calling area in the US, though I'm not sure I believed it even then. Peter Campbell Smith, Logica plc, London. Voice: +44 71 637 9111 Fax: +44 71 344 3638 Internet: campbellsm@lish.logica.com ------------------------------ From: st1r8@elroy.uh.edu (B.J. Guillot) Subject: Re: S-s-s-stuttering Dial Tone Detection Date: 6 Jun 1994 12:47 CDT Organization: University of Houston In article , davep@u.washington.edu (Dave Ptasnik) writes... > kmp@tiac.net (K. M. Peterson) writes: >> My problem: I don't want to have to lift the handset to find out if I >> have messages. Has someone come up with a box to sit on one's line >> and detect this (and flash a lamp or something)? > A Canadian company called Xinex Networks, Inc. makes an amazing > telephone called the mindSET. It periodically samples the line > looking for stutter dial tone, and turns on a big message light when Speaking of "stutter dial tone", I called SW Bell the other day to get information on their voice mail service (Call Notes), and the rep guy said "When you lift up the handset, you will hear a SPECIAL noise that indicates a message is waiting." I then asked him, you mean "stutter dialtone?" He replied "Exactly! But it's politically incorrect for us to use that term now, or we could get fired." Well, I thought it was interesting. :-)... Regards, B.J. Guillot ... Houston, Texas USA ------------------------------ From: steven@sgb.oau.org (Steven Bradley) Subject: Re: S-s-s-stuttering Dial Tone Detection Organization: The Forest City Exchange, Forest City, Florida Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 18:52:26 GMT > I believe the BelTronics Caller-ID unit also has a "MSG" display on > the unit. You can get this unit at Lechmere. ^^^^^^^^ Do you have an address or phone number for this company? Internet: steven@sgb.oau.org Steven G. Bradley steven@gate.net Forest City, Florida GEnie: s.bradley6@genie.geis.com CompuServe: 73232.505@compuserve.com Phone: 407/862-7226 America Online: sgbradley@aol.com Modem: 407/862-8088 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jun 94 15:45 WET From: joharris@io.org (John Harris) Subject: Re: S-s-s-stuttering Dial Tone Detection Jpc@mtrac.com wrote: >> Stretching my one phone line ever further, I'm considering getting >> voicemail from our local telco. >> My problem: I don't want to have to lift the handset to find out if I >> have messages. Has someone come up with a box to sit on one's line >> and detect this (and flash a lamp or something)? > I believe the BelTronics Caller-ID unit also has a "MSG" display on > the unit. You can get this unit at Lechmere. Beware. The message waiting feature on the BEL-Tronics Caller ID unit, which is not an advertized feature, will only work in specific instances. The telephone company must deliver a Caller ID message waiting signal as specified by Bell Canada ID-0008. Multiple Data Message Format, paramater code 11, status 255 to turn ON, status 0 to turn OFF. The telephone company must deliver a ring signal before the Visual message waiting signal; since the Caller ID unit is battery powered and goes to sleep except for 28 seconds after a ring. In words of one sylable. Don't expect it to work unless you live in Toronto or Montreal. John Harris BEL-Tronics Ltd, Mississauga, Ontario L5L 1J9 joharris@io.org (905) 828-1002 Fax (905) 828-2951 ------------------------------ From: jlundgre@ohlone.kn.PacBell.COM (John Lundgren) Subject: Re: "Line in use" Circuit For Phone Date: 6 Jun 94 17:14:57 GMT Organization: Pacific Bell Knowledge Network Re: Phone in use indicator LED. Some of the enquiries are for something to prevent the abort of the modem session when another phone is picked up. There is another, better way around this. The decent quality modems have two jacks, one for line and one for phone. The phone jack is disconnected from the line when there is a session in progress. Some cheap modems don't because the two jacks are just in parallel. If you have a direct two pair line from your modem to the phone line entrance point, you can use this method. Connect the second pair to a modular plug that connects to the 'phone' jack on the modem. Then run this line clear back to the entrance point, and connect all the other phone lines to it. When your modem is off-hook, the other phones won't get any dial tone. Connect green to black and red to yellow. You have to make up a jumper block to use when you've got the modem unplugged. Take a regular modular block with two jacks and connect the green and red wires together. Then when you have the modem unplugged, plug both lines into the two jacks, so that others have dial tone. People say that this isn't a very realistic way to do it, but it's the ONLY way that will guarantee that the session won't be aborted by someone picking up a phone ... because blinking LEDs won't! John Lundgren - Elec Tech - Info Tech Svcs Rancho Santiago Community College District 17th St. at Bristol \ Santa Ana, CA 92706 Voice (714) JOHN GAB \ FAX (714) JOHN FRY jlundgre@pop.rancho.cc.ca.us\jlundgr@eis.calstate.edu ------------------------------ From: Wes.Leatherock@tranquil.nova.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 05 Jun 94 21:46:00 -0600 Subject: Re: FCC Seeks Further Comments on 0+ Call Routing Organization: Fidonet -=> Quoting sbrack@esserv01.utnetw.utoledo.edu (Steve Brack) <=- > In almost every other area of business I can think of, the greatest > latitude in billing arrangements is given to the person paying for the > service, rather than the person using it. All BPP will do is bring > telephone billing in line with standard commercial practice. This is definitely not true in anything when you are sending something to someone else. The sender decides whether to send something by regular U.S. mail, Express Mail, Federal Express (three different levels of service), UPS (numerous levels of service), Roadway Package Systems, Airborne Express, Emery Airfreight, a large number of common carrier truck lines, contract truck lines and independents, railroads (numerous different routings). Many of these offer "collect" service that works just like it does for a telephone call. And in every case the carrier that the shipper tenders the shipment to will take the shipment to its destination, or give it to a connection that takes it to its destination, and will collect for the charges. (And there are some- times difficulties when the consignee wants the shipment sent one way and the shipper sends all its shipments some other way. But nobody has suggested a government regulation ought to cover this, even though they all use the same public streets and highways to pick up and deliver.) When there were separate telegraph companies, if you sent a telegraph by Postal Telegraph it would be delivered by Postal Telegraph, which would collect the charges if the message was sent collect. If you sent it by Western Union, Western Union would carry it and collect for it. And Postal did not deliver over Western Union's tielines ("WUX") to the customer, nor did Western Union deliver over Postal's tielines. The same thing was true of international record carriers. If you sent your message by RCA Communications, it would be delivered (and collected for) by RCA Communications. If you sent it by Mackay Communications that carrier would carry it and collect for the charges from the received. Same thing was true if you sent it by the French cable company (I forget their exact name), or one of several other carriers that served various parts of the world. In all these similar cases in the past and into the present, it has been up to the intended receiver of the shipment or communication to get -- or try to get -- the sender to send it by the way preferred by the receiver. Why shouldn't the same be true of telephone calls? The FCC proposal was in its formative stages at least three years ago, and it seems a very expensive project, especially as it is at variance with the common custom. Wes Leatherock wes.leatherock@tranquil.nova.com wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What you say is true, but you must remember that the recipient has the right to refuse the collect shipment or telegram or whatever. If Federal Express shows up at my door with a package I did not order and it was sent collect, do you think I am going to pay for it? I just tell the man to take it back wherever it came from; then when the recipient gets it back he *has* to pay, even for the non-delivery since he caused the freight company to carry the package both ways, etc. Likewise if I get a collect phone call announced by the operator, I refuse it rather than risk a very high surcharge, etc. If you want me to pay for something (package or phone call, etc) then you deliver it according to my instructions or it does not get delivered. If you pay, then you make those decisions. PAT] ------------------------------ From: stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com (Dick St.Peters) Subject: Best Way to Get Many (~50) Phone Lines? Reply-To: stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com Organization: GE Corporate R&D, Schenectady, NY Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 19:24:04 GMT Hi. I'm new to telecom things and need help. (Lots of it ...) I'm becoming an Internet provider -- dialup PPP/SLIP, so I need a lot of phone lines. NYNEX says it wants a ten-year contract (with a bond) before it will install a lot of pairs to my house. They will gladly sell me several T1s, but even though I'm less than a mile from my CO, this is more than twice the cost per line ... without even including costs of the equipment to demux the T1s. Further, they tell me that all 24 lines on a T1 must be used for voice lines ... I can't use any of them as 56k DDS local loops ... no tariff, they say. (I forgot to ask about 3002 leased voice lines.) NYNEX would be happier about stringing lots of pairs to a real office, but I'd have to rent the office, so the costs actually work out sort of similar unless the demux equipment is really expensive. How expensive is it? What is it? NYNEX says I need a PBX. Do I really need one if I only want to tie each line to a modem and/or terminal server? Finally, what am I not asking that I should be? Dick St.Peters, Gatekeeper, Pearly Gateway; currently at: GE Corporate R&D, Schenectady, NY stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com soon: stpeters@NetHeaven.com ------------------------------ From: lreeves@crl.com (Les Reeves) Subject: 711 in Atlanta Date: 6 Jun 1994 12:52:43 -0700 Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [login: guest] The second N11 service sold by BellSouth to the highest bidder gets off the ground this week. Williams' 711 service is working in most parts of the city now. The official start-up is June 15. Some of the services are free, others are $ 0.25 or more per call. According to the 711 operator, the pay services will not be charging for the next week or so. Unlike Cox's 511 service, 711 will have both free and pay-per-call programs. The time, weather, and lottery info is free. Dial #5 to get connected to WAGA's free time, weather, and lottery info. Les lreeves@crl.com Atlanta, GA 404.874.7806 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #275 ******************************