TELECOM Digest Fri, 23 Sep 94 11:09:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 372 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Now AT&T is _Lying_ About True-Voice (Steve Cogorno) Re: Now AT&T is _Lying_ About True-Voice (Nick Sayer) Re: Now AT&T is _Lying_ About True-Voice (Jeffrey Fritz) Re: Now AT&T is _Lying_ About True-Voice (Michael Guslick) Re: Now AT&T is _Lying_ About True-Voice (David Adams) Re: Now AT&T is _Lying_ About True-Voice (Robert Springer) True Voice ... True Difference? (Rakesh Bharania) Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (Jeff Hibbard) Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (Bob Goudreau) Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (Carl Oppedahl) Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (museums@aol.com) Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (Henry Wertz) Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (Carl Moore) Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (clawsona Re: Yet Another NYNEX Blunder (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Yet Another NYNEX Blunder (Alan Boritz) Re: Cellphones and Smoke Detectors (David S. Channin) Re: 24-Hour Callback Lines Needed (Doug Gurich) 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 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: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: Now AT&T is _Lying_ About True-Voice Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 10:15:05 PDT Nick Sayer said: > If they're trying to imply that that is what a long distance phone > call sounds like (which _despite_ truevoice is _still_ constrained to > roughly 300-3000 Hz), then it's nothing short of outright fraud. They aren't, it's a commercial. > Business as usual, eh AT&T? This is no more of a lie than MCI saying in their Friends and Family II commericials that the average cost of a long distance call costs half as much as it did ten years ago (before the Bell breakup). Then the Rep says "Who do you think was responsible for that?" Hundreds of people shout out "MCI!" BUT they fail to mention that it was the breakup of the Bell System which lowered these call costs. (Which also increased the cost of local calls by a large percentage.) Steve cogorno@netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Steve, your point is a very good one. Especially so since the average American phone user merely sends one check each month to pay the phone bill. He's seen his long distance bill (which he uses very little of) go down and his local calling bill (which he uses a lot more) go up. Overall, telephone bills are higher now -- disproportionatly so -- than ever before. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Nick Sayer Subject: Re: Now AT&T is _Lying_ About True-Voice Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 10:20:22 PDT Steve Cogorno writes: > Nick Sayer said: >> If they're trying to imply that that is what a long distance phone >> call sounds like (which _despite_ truevoice is _still_ constrained to >> roughly 300-3000 Hz), then it's nothing short of outright fraud. > They aren't it's a commercial. And that excuses the fraud? >> Business as usual, eh AT&T? > This is no more of a lie than MCI saying [...] Who said MCI was any better? I said nothing about any other long distance company being superior, inferior, or anything else. I am saying simply that the AT&T ad is fraudulent. Nick Sayer N6QQQ @ N0ARY.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest' URL: http://www.kfu.com/~nsayer/ ------------------------------ From: jfritz@wvnvm.wvnet.edu (Jeffrey Fritz) Subject: Re: Now AT&T is _Lying_ About True-Voice Organization: West Virginia University Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 17:44:38 GMT In article , nsayer@quack.kfu.com (Nick Sayer) wrote: > If they're trying to imply that that is what a long distance phone > call sounds like (which _despite_ truevoice is _still_ constrained to > roughly 300-3000 Hz), then it's nothing short of outright fraud. > Business as usual, eh AT&T? I heard a rumor (perhaps untrue) that Bellcore had developed a technology for boosting the bass on phone calls. No one was interested and it laid around in the lab for quite a while. AT&T marketing discovered it and, zap, instant "True Voice." BTW, the telephone network supports a 300 - 3 kbps bandwidth for a reason -- understandability. If you listen to the True Voice demos, the increased base sounds nicer, but makes it harder to clearly hear the person on the other end. Just my two cents ... Jeffrey Fritz jfritz@wvnvm.wvnet.edu West Virginia University ------------------------------ From: michaelg@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu (Ralph the Wonder Llama) Subject: Re: Now AT&T is _Lying_ About True-Voice Date: 23 Sep 1994 12:48:22 GMT Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, Computing Services Division I tried calling the 800 number for the "True Voice" demo (anybody have the number? I can't seem to remember it now ...), and was not at all impressed. The bass gets turned up by a wee bit. Big deal. Those commercials are really fraudulent ... Michael Guslick USnail: 711 Hwy. C NAR #53962 Grafton, WI 53024 michaelg@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu SR-71 Blackbird ph.: (414) 377-4428 ------------------------------ From: david@uslink.net (David Adams) Subject: Re: Now AT&T is _Lying_ About True-Voice Date: 23 Sep 1994 06:10:31 GMT Organization: USLink Communications Nick Sayer (nsayer@quack.kfu.com) wrote: > AT&T's latest "True Fraud^H^H^H^H^HVoice" ad has reached a new low in > deceptive practices. The add features a rediculous sort of "control > room" full of CRTs showing silly waterfall displays of a lady singing > their "True Voice" song, though the audio of her singing is quite low > in level and has the bass attenuated slightly. This is supposed to be > characteristic of a telephone call. > If they're trying to imply that that is what a long distance phone > call sounds like (which _despite_ truevoice is _still_ constrained to > roughly 300-3000 Hz), then it's nothing short of outright fraud. It would be real interesting if somebody ran the same test as in the AT&T ad with the same song as an audio source and then post the results. Dave ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 11:30:42 -0500 From: Robert Springer Subject: Re: Now AT&T is _Lying_ About True-Voice You may be interested in trying AT&T's True Voice Demonstration (I unfortunately do not have the 800 demo number). When several of us at NYNEX tried their demonstration, we actually preferred the "Before" condition without 'True Voice' enhancement. Robert Springer NYNEX Science and Technology ------------------------------ From: densaer@kaiwan.com (Rakesh Bharania) Subject: True Voice ... True Difference? Date: 23 Sep 1994 09:50:14 -0700 Organization: KAIWAN Internet (310/527-4279,818/756-0180,714/741-2920) Several months ago, I called the True-Voice demo line when it first went up (I forgot where I got the number from), and I couldn't tell one whit of difference between the normal voice and the "enhanced" one. Several days ago, I saw the Whitney Houston commercial and decided to try again (hey, the line was new .. maybe it wasn't fully working, right?) Again, I couldn't tell the difference. I even got my dad to call this up, and HE couldn't tell the difference. So is "True Voice" an actual technology or just a marketing move? Rakesh Bharania densaer@kaiwan.com ------------------------------ From: jeff@bradley.bradley.edu (Jeff Hibbard) Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls Date: 23 Sep 1994 02:21:39 -0500 Organization: Bradley University varney@uscbu.ih.att.com writes: > Illinois - 7-digit Toll The above is true in Ameritech territory. However, those of us chosen to participate in the Great Telephone Experiment current must dial 1+7D for toll calls within the NPA and will soon have to dial 1+10D for them. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 16:56:20 -0400 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls Al Varney writes: > About 2:1 in favor of the "1+ means Toll" method by counting > States. By population, it's about the other way around. I beg to differ. Greg Monti's excellent "NPA Readiness for 1995" table shows that the places using 7D dialing for intra-NPA long distance are overwhelmingly outnumbered on all possible counts (number of states & provinces, number of NPAs, and population) by places using 1+10D dialing. The roster of 7D locales includes no Caribbean countries or Canadian provinces, and only 8 US states (CA, NY, NJ, PA, IL, ME, NH, and WV). These 7D areas contain less than one third of the NANP's total population, and only 33 out of its 143 NPAs. You may not like it, but 1+10D is the norm, not the exception. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls Date: 23 Sep 1994 06:16:58 -0400 Organization: Oppedahl & Larson In Sanjiv Narayan writes: > I have noticed a strange thing here since I became a NYNEX customer in > Marlboro, MA. They have a local calling area (approximatly five mile > radius) within which I can place unlimited calls for a flat charge. > However if I call a number outside my local calling area (but still ** > within ** my 508 area-code), a recording asks you to redial with a '1' > prefixed before the seven-digit number I am calling. > Here's my question: If the NYNEX switching equipment is smart enough > to figure out that I need to dial a '1', why does it not go ahead and > complete the call anyway. I am willing to pay for the call regardless > of whether I redial with a '1' prefix or they complete it for me, > right !!? The reason is simple. Right *now* the system is able to figure it out. But there will be some future time when the system will not be able to, and the "1" will be quite necessary. The goal is to change your behavior between now and then. The reason the system won't be able to figure it out someday is a function of all those phone numbers that start with area codes, etc. Carl Oppedahl AA2KW Oppedahl & Larson (patent lawyers) Yorktown Heights, NY oppedahl@patents.com ------------------------------ From: museums@aol.com (MUSEUMS) Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls Date: 22 Sep 1994 20:53:08 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Well they are going to have to change things awfully soon because of the numbering changes going on. I personally believe that seven digit dialing for toll calls should be optional. They should force you dial 1 and your own area code for long distance, or just the seven digits or give you the option for only 1 + area code. 1 + seven digits will have to be gone because of the new area code schemes. Some places like NJ have had seven digits for a really long time, because NJ is loaded with NNX's that are old traditional NPA; prefixes are like 315, 407, 305 ... etc ... etc. The tradional numbering system setup in the 1950's is going to be a thing of the past ... I really don't mind it. What is weird is that on Long Island, area code 516, they still don't dial 1's for anything. I guess they can dial 800-xxx-xxxx or area code-xxx-xxxx. I guess this means they don't have any NPA's as prefixes, or there is special software. Richard [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, I must beg to differ with you. Prefixes like 417 and 305 are *not* old and traditional. Originally prefixes were the exact opposite of area codes: area codes always had a one or zero as the middle digit with two through nine as the first digit. Prefixes *never* had zero or one as the middle digit and *never* had zero as the third digit. Of course, area codes never had zero as the third digit either with the exception of 800, which is not really an 'area code' anyway and is the grandfather of the various special service codes one can dial before a seven digit number. I first remember seeing an 800 number about 1966 when the use of 800 began to replace 'Enterprise' and 'Zenith' numbers. Not only were zeroes and ones never used as the middle digit of prefixes until starting about ten years ago, any prefix appearing in one area code was never duplicated in the area code on either side of it. That is, since 659 was (is) a valid prefix in northern Indiana, it was not assigned until very, very late in 312. That way, telco was able to allow 'community dialing' when a community straddled a state line as in the case of the south Chicago/northern Indiana metropolitan area. Chicagoans could dial seven digits to get the northern Indiana area and likewise out there seven digits could be used to reach up here. That luxury, of never having the same prefix in two ajoining area codes, had to be eliminated by sometime in the 1970's. So, there was another use for '1' on the front end. Without it it meant give me the local exchange by this number; with it it meant give me the exchange by this number in Chicago (or vice versa). Until recently, subscribers in Antioch, Illinois on 708-396 could dial their next door neighbors in North Antioch, Wisconsin (404-397) by merely dialing 397 plus the last four digits. Of course that meant they had to dial '1' as a leading digit to reach 708-397, in the southern part of the area code in Blue Island, Illinois. In fact, people in Antioch had to dial '1' to call anywhere outside of Antioch/North Antioch, even if in 708. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Henry Wertz Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls Date: 23 Sep 1994 01:41:30 GMT Organization: U of Iowa Panda System Reply-To: Henry@chop.isca.uiowa.edu In note , Sanjiv Narayan writes: > It becomes very cumbersome when you have to redial the number with the > '1' prefixed. I never had a similar problem with Pacific Bell in So. > California. The only time a '1' was required was when I dialed a > number in another area code. If a number was outside your local > calling area, Pacific Bell simply billed you for it. No redialing was > ever required. Actually, this is the standard, not the exception. Here, we just switched to having to dial 1 + area code + phone number for *anything* outside local calling area, even in the 319 area code. I saw a file in the Telecom Archives about this, and there were only a few area codes that *didn't* use a 1+. I got the bad luck of being in one. I wanted to know if some BBSs were local, and there was no easy way to tell. I had to look in the phone book and look it up. For *me*, it would have been easier to just dial 'em and listen for the "dial 1" recording. I would be really pissed if they took it out here; then it would be IMHO too easy to unknowingly dial LD numbers. I know they're in the book, but it's much easier to notice when you get the recording than memorize the local prefixes (which I have ... 351, 354, 337, 338, 339, 336, ... actually, I think there's a couple others.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Sep 94 05:29:01 GMT From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls I did earlier notice that Massachusetts has 1+NPA+7D for all long distance and for local calls to other area code. This is unusual. Normally, if an area has gone to 1+NPA+7D for long distance within an area code, it gets to continue using 7D for local calls to other area code; Delaware (where 1+7D is not yet turned off at this writing) and Maryland have this EXCEPT for end these local calls originating in Maryland and using NPA+7D: 1. DC area (to DC and Virginia) 2. across 301/410 border ------------------------------ From: clawsona@yvax.byu.edu Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls Date: 23 Sep 94 05:38:43 -0700 Organization: Brigham Young University Uhhhh ... excuse me? In the past, area codes could not have a 1 or a 0 in the middle? Ummmm ... I can't think offhand of any area codes that DON'T have a 1 or a 0 in the middle: 313, 801, 810, 212, 213, 202, 617, 517.... Are you sure that's what you meant to say? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It was *prefixes* which never had zero or one in the middle and never had zero as the third digit. Area codes *always* had zero or one as the second digit and never had zero as the third digit. The prefix rule was broken first, several years ago, and now the area code rule is about to be broken in the next year. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tony_Pelliccio@brown.edu (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Yet Another NYNEX Blunder Date: 22 Sep 1994 17:18:26 GMT Organization: Brown University -- Providence, Rhode Island USA In article , wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom. uoknor.edu wrote: > Many LECs will not send you a copy of the tariff or parts of > it. It varies by company and often by the individual you talk to (and > that's often because of the particular circumstances). They take the > position that you can inspect the tariff in their offices or at the > commission, but they are not required to make you a copy. Yeah sort of like NYNEX. The copy of the tarrif for my area is in Boston of all places. If you think I'm going to drive up to Boston just to look at it you're nuts. But then, Telco has all the eggs in their basket don't they? Tony Pelliccio, KD1NR - Brown University ADIR Computing Services Box 1908, Prov, RI 02912 Tel. (401) 863-1880 Fax. (401) 863-2269 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Yet Another NYNEX Blunder From: drharry!aboritz@uunet.uu.net (Alan Boritz) Reply-To: uunet!drharry!aboritz@uunet.uu.net (Alan Boritz) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 94 20:24:30 EDT Organization: Harry's Place - Mahwah NJ - +1 201 934 0861 wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu writes: >> I asked the gentleman to fax me the appropriate tariffs and we would >> read them together. This he did, and after examining the five >> applicable pages that described business vs residence service, he had >> to conclude that my operation fully qualified as residence service. > Many LECs will not send you a copy of the tariff or parts of > it. It varies by company and often by the individual you talk to (and > that's often because of the particular circumstances). They take the > position that you can inspect the tariff in their offices or at the > commission, but they are not required to make you a copy. MCI took that position with me, and they don't get much of my business any more. ;) I think that you need to speak with the right person, and in the right manner, to get a copy of what you need, since regular cs reps are typically too busy to handle such a request, or might not even know where to look for what you need. If I have to begin a service audit with retrieving a copies of tariffs via a third-party vendor, you can pretty much count on my being twice as nasty about getting money back. aboritz%drharry@uunet.uu.net or uunet!drharry!aboritz Harry's Place (drharry.UUCP) - Mahwah NJ USA - +1-201-934-0861 ------------------------------ From: dsc@xray.hmc.psu.edu (David S. Channin) Subject: Re: Cellphones and Smoke Detectors Date: 23 Sep 1994 02:39:24 GMT Organization: Dept. of Radiology, Hershey Medical Center, Hershey PA Our medical center currently has a ban on the use of cellphones within the building because they do activate the fire alarms. dsc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 94 02:06:21 CST From: Doug_Gurich@fcircus.sat.tx.us (Doug Gurich) Subject: Re: 24-Hour Callback Lines Needed Bruce, GlobalCom International can provide you with the 24 hour connection you are seeking from Japan to the U.S. We can offer you a solution that would provide six full-time, 24-hour dedicated lines for only approximatly $12,500/month (if you terminate on the west coast). This would effectively give you a per minute rate of only about $0.047 per minute (if you were to use each line continuously). Now, this is a leased line solution and your message indicated that leased lines would pose a problem. However, GlobalCom has a great deal of experience in providing international leased lines, as well as a great deal of experience in dealing with PTT's. Your company would not have to worry about the Japanese PTT (all contact would be directly with GlobalCom). If however, you must use a call back connection, we can also provide that to you. However, the cost would be significantly higher (at least eight times higher). I do believe you should consider the leased line option. GlobalCom personnel have a significant background in providing such service to the US military and multi-national corporations. In fact we are currently providing similar service between the US and Japan right now. We can also handle the Internet connection for you as well (if so desired). Doug Gurich GlobalCom International +1 210 525 7969 +1 210 525 7959 (fax) 71650.3012@compuserve.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #372 ******************************