TELECOM Digest Fri, 16 Oct 92 00:45:20 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 783 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Unhappy With the AT&T Attitude (Steve Forrette) Re: Unhappy With the AT&T Attitude (Jack Adams) Re: Old Telephone Wiring at Network Interface (John Higdon) Re: Old Telephone Wiring at Network Interface (Shrikumar) Re: Old Telephone Wiring at Network Interface (John Rice) Re: More LATA Nuttiness (Eppes Fork, VA and Raleigh, NC LATAs) (Eli Mantel) Re: More LATA Nuttiness (Carl Moore) Re: GTE Addresses On Outgoing Email (Jim J. Murphy) Re: "...is the Highest Law of the Land..." (Andrew Klossner) Re: What it Costs to Have the President Over (Tom Adams) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Unhappy With the AT&T Attitude Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 22:55:06 GMT In article John Higdon writes: > Some time back, I recounted a situation where calls to the UK were > appearing on my telephone bill. These calls showed as being made on a > weekly basis on a line that is not used in any way for outgoing calls. > As mentioned, AT&T very reluctantly removed the charges, indicating in > essence that since the calls were "direct dialed" they had to have > been made from my residence, with or without my knowledge. [unfortunate story about bad attitude from AT&T deleted] I had a similar problem a few years ago when my carrier was Sprint. Crossed lines with Pacific Bell caused someone else to have an "extension" to my line upon which they decided to place lots of long distance calls. Sprint's attitude was the same that John got from AT&T: "If the computer says you made the calls, then you made the calls." I can somewhat understand their stance. I'm sure the percentage of times people claim to not have made certain calls versus the time when they really didn't is incredibly high. But, as was the case for both John and I, it would stand to reason that they would take into account a longstanding customer's history of large bills and prompt payments as a sign that they may be telling the truth. I wanted to share a recent experience I had with the business side of AT&T where they gave truly outstanding service in relation to the other carriers, and which convinced me that there is (still) only one carrier that can provide the highest levels of service that some of us demand. I was planning a special promotion that would be advertised on short notice on the radio. As such, I needed to get 800 service installed in less than a week. Because I had previously used Cable & Wireless's Programmable 800 service, and really liked the fact that I could change the routing myself instantly at any time, I gave them a call. After explaining my rush, they promised to set me up with their "expedite 800" program, where they can get it working in 24 hours. This was on a Friday. On Tuesday morning, they called me back to tell me that HQ had rejected the order because it did not have the nine digit ZIP code for the billing address. Apparently, the sales offices are required to submit the nine digit ZIP code on all orders, and when they do not, HQ just bounces the order back to them. I thought this was a pretty lame excuse for delaying an "expedite 800" order, but gave them the information (they apparently don't have a ZIP+4 directory nor are able to call the post office themselves), and took them at their word that it would be working that day. As of Wednesday morning, it still was not working. On Tuesday, after I got the first call back from C&W, I began looking elsewhere. I called Sprint, and they faxed me some information and a form to sign and said it would take about a week. Also, even though I had requested only their 800 service, they tried to get me to sign a letter of agency which authorized them to switch all of my 1+ traffic to them. When challenged, they said "Well, why would you NOT want to switch? You save at least 20% off of AT&T rates with our Business Clout. blah blah blah". Then they told me that the letter of agency was necessary in order for them to tell my RBOC how to route the 800 calls to my regular lines, which of course is hogwash. On Wednesday morning, in a panic since the ad was to run the next day, I called AT&T, and humbly explained that I had tried in vain to get 800 service in a hurry from other carriers. After taking down some information, they said they would get it working as soon as possible. About 50 minutes later, they called to tell me that my 800 number was installed, working, and tested. And the cost difference was so small that it was not worth even worrying about other carriers. Why could AT&T get something installed in 50 minutes that would take the other guys a week to do? And the other guys then wonder why AT&T maintains such a large percentage of the market, and claim it is because of "unfair" advantages left over from pre-divestiture. Maybe when they are able to provide anywhere near the level of service to business customers that AT&T can, they will get more business. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com, I do not speak for my employer. ------------------------------ From: vixen!jadams@uunet.UU.NET (22475-adams) Subject: Re: Unhappy With the AT&T Attitude Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 12:54:09 GMT In article , john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > As mentioned previously, I do substantial business with AT&T each > month. Considering the size of my bills, the idea that I would attempt > to weasel out of even $100 is absurd. The supervisor today was put on > notice that considering the wretched treatment that I received and the > lack of effort AT&T put forth in resolving the problem, my search for > a carrier that would offer even remotely similar rates/service has > been intensified. I empathize with John on this. However, from personal experience, I know that almost *ALL* of the big three seem to have this attitude to one degree or another. Ironically, I find AT&T to be the best ;^} of the lot from a customer respect perspective. Jack (John) Adams Bellcore NVC 2Z-220 (908) 758-5372 {Voice} (908) 758-4389 {Facsimile} jadams@vixen.bellcore.com kahuna@attmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 09:46 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Old Telephone Wiring at Network Interface arnold@Synopsys.COM (Arnold de Leon) writes: > On the old cables I could not find the black wire. If the cable is old enough, it will not have a black wire. The very old station cable had only three wires in it. > Can I simply take the yellow wire from the other cables and use them > for the second line? I am assuming that I can find the black in the > sheath. I would not do this if I were you. Ordinary jacketed station wire is not "twisted pair" and its use for two lines over any distance is an invitation for crosstalk. If you go back through the issues of the Digest, you will find article after article complaining about crosstalk between two lines in the home and the cause in most cases turns out to be the use of D station wire for two lines. > Should/can I ask PacBell to move both my lines to the new network > interface box? There is a down side to the new box. It has circuitry in it that enables telco to isolate the pair from your equipment. Sometimes this circuitry becomes flaky and is itself a cause of trouble. If there is no trouble with the old protector, telco may charge you to replace it. > Any general comments? Any recommended reading for someone doing > inside phone wiring? If you are going to run multiple lines around the house in the same cable, be sure that the cable is "twisted pair". This is usually identified by wires bearing the colors: white/blue, white/orange, etc. If it has red/green/yellow/black, do NOT use it to carry more than one line. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 03:34:12 -0400 From: shri%unreal@cs.umass.edu Subject: Re: Old Telephone Wiring at Network Interface Organization: UMass, Amherst, MA 01002 + Temporal Sys & Comp Net, Bombay, India In article arnold@Synopsys.COM wrote: > When I opened the old network interface I had trouble finding the > yellow/black pair. I eventually found the yellow wires connected to a > screw connector. There is also a wire running from this connector to > the new network interface. > The wire does *not* go to any of the connectors used for phones. Is > it some sort of ground? Was it used for powering Princess phones? The wire yellow and black got to A/A1 for (I think thats what its called) Answer supervision, used on exclusion key phones. Thats mumbo-jumbo for I'll short A to A1 when I pick up the call. I had exactly the same network interface configuration in my apt when my second line was installed as you describe. That is what led to the EASA-phone problem I bugged people on this list with a week or so ago. :-) So I can share some acquired wisdom. The old network interface, inside your house, has an extra RJ11 in the bottom to which the phone line comes, and this is jumpered to the main RJ11 jack in the middle of the panel. If the main RJ11 seems bad, you are supposed to be able to plug you phone directly to the bottom RJ11 and get it to work there for instant debugging -- "See its not MaBell's problem there!" (I don't understand really what great end this achieves :-) Maybe they thought then that the RJ11 female was the major failure point ... !) Anyway ... The NET tech who wired my phone for me wired my existing line into the bottom RJ11 and the new line into the front-main RJ11. So the Red-Green goes to the bottom RJ11, the yellow-black go to the main RJ11. Only, the yellow-black from the bottom RJ11 continued to be remain where they were screwed in, ie right on the lugs that were now used for the new lines tip-and ring, ie. the yellow-black from the new network interface in the basement. That's fact one ... ( I discovered the facts the hard way, in reverse! :-) Now fact two ... My answering machine on my old line seems to do that A/A1 short whenever it picks up the phone. Now remember, by fact one, the old lines yello-black for A/A1 was screwed with my new line tip/ring!. Thus it would just short the tip and ring on my new line, whenever it picked up the call on the old line. For a long and very painful week I was wondering why my EASAphone on the new line would go dead only when the answering machine on the old line picked up an irrelavant call! Moral: when you wire the phone to the jack, disconnect everything, isolate the yellow-black pair from each RJ11 and tape or clip them. Then connect the red-green of each RJ11 to the red-green or yellow-black of the telco line. And to think my wiring was done by the NET techie, who made that gaffe!! Oh, BTW, do all answering machines do that A/A1 short? Specifically does the Uniden model AB480B do it? (single micro cassette phone cum ans machine, beeperless remote VOX/CPC, Toll saver, memo etc, in recent COMB catalog ?) I could really use this feature for some neat an-swearing messages! shrikumar (shri@legato.cs.umass.edu, shri@iucaa.ernet.in) ------------------------------ From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com Subject: Re: Old Telephone Wiring at Network Interface Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 12:46:42 GMT In article , arnold@Synopsys.COM (Arnold Leon) writes: > I just had a second line installed at our house. Since a second > line has never been installed here before PacBell installed a new > network interface box for the second line. The house is 39 years old. > I had decided to do my own inside wiring. My plan was to simply tie > in the second line to the existing wiring on the second pair (yellow > and black). When I opened the old network interface I had trouble > finding the yellow/black pair. I eventually found the yellow wires > connected to a screw connector. There is also a wire running from > this connector to the new network interface. In the 'deep dark distant past', the Bell Standard for Domestic Inside Wiring, was three wires (Red, Green and Yellow). The Yellow was a ground, which was usually used for party line ringing (Tip to ground, or Ring to ground). You won't find a black wire in the cable at all. > Any general comments? Any recommended reading for someone doing > inside phone wiring? I ran into this same thing when I bought my last house (built in the early 50s). The only existing wiring was all three wire. I had to re-wire the whole place. I'd recommend you replace all the 'three wire' with quad or multi-pair if you want to distribute both lines throughout the house. John Rice K9IJ "Did I say that ?" I must have, but It was MY opinion only, no one else's...Especially Not my Employer's.... rice@ttd.teradyne.com ------------------------------ From: Eli.Mantel@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Eli Mantel) Subject: Re: More LATA Nuttiness (Eppes Fork, VA and Raleigh, NC LATAs) Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:57:36 GMT In article de@moscom.com (David Esan) writes: > 930 is EPPES FORK, VA. Anyone know anything about it? Every North Carolina phone book published by Carolina Telephone (part of United Telephone) contains a map showing all the LATAs in North Carolina, and then lists the exchanges within each of the LATAs served by United Telephone. These three LATAs are **Eppes Fork**, Fayetteville, and Rocky Mount. While Fayetteville and Rocky Mount each have several columns of exchanges listed, the Eppes Fork LATA is listed as follows: Eppes Fork LATA Henderson (Eppes Fork) 252 That's Henderson, NC, by the way. The area code directory in the same phone book lists Henderson as being in area code 919, while presumably there are parts of the Eppes Fork LATA in the 804 area code, yet on the same telephone exchange. Another curiosity I noticed, in looking at the LATA map, is that the Raleigh, NC LATA is discontiguous. It includes Raleigh and Goldsboro, but these two cities are totally separated from each other by parts of the Rocky Mount and Fayetteville LATAs. Eli Mantel (eli.mantel@bbs.oit.unc.edu) The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service. internet: bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 10:20:36 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: More LATA Nuttiness You mentioned "EPPES FORK, VA". I saw (in the Buggs Island telephone directory, which serves South Hill, Va.) that Epps Fork (notice the minor spelling difference) is served by Carolina Telephone on the 252 prefix, and I cannot yet determine if it is actually in Virginia (804 area) or North Carolina (919 area). ------------------------------ From: JIM.J.MURPHY@gte.sprint.com Date: 16 Oct 92 03:00:00 UT Subject: Re: GTE Addresses On Outgoing Email Steve Forrette's comments about working regulated and de-regulated jobs together puzzle me. In Iowa we are not split into a regulated and a deregulated work force. I'm not sure why not, but it's fine with me. It means more job security by having more work to do, and provides a nice variety of work experience. There have been days when I have been dispatched to plow a drop wire (a regulated job) and sent next to work on a PBX system at our small local hospital (a de-regulated job). Other times I might have a service order for a new install. The customer has asked for a jack and wire to be placed in his new house. I first work on the regulated cable to terminate the pair at the customer's house. Then I enter the house and work on a de-regulated inside wire and jack. I charge my time accordingly. There's no advantage in our work environment here simply because we do both regulated and de-regulated jobs. The important point I wanted to make is that different work groups can work together. In this day of "It's not my problem", attitude, it's nice to be able to work together. Jim Murphy AA0JG Internet - JIM.J.MURPHY@gte.sprint.com Telemail - J.J.Murphy America Online - Big Daddy8 ------------------------------ From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 15:09:37 PDT Subject: Re: "...is the Highest Law of the Land..." Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com Organization: Tektronix Color Printers, Wilsonville, Oregon > "where the state constitution is a bit hard to change, public > utility commissions are bought and sold all the time." Just as scary, and on a wider scale: the US Constitution provides that all treaties have equal standing with the Constitution: "This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." This is why some people get so excited about seemingly obscure treaties. The President signs it, the Senate ratifies it, and suddenly it overrides any federal or state law with which it conflicts. Andrew Klossner (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com) ------------------------------ From: tadams@wedge.sbc.com (Tom. Adams 529-7860) Subject: Re: What it Costs to Have the President Over Organization: Southwestern Bell Technology Resources, St.Louis, MO Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 13:27:50 GMT In St. Louis we've had several presidential visits. Most involve shutting down a major interstate for 30 minutes, often during rush hour. Even the Vice President rates closing the Interstate. After Sunday's debate, the President spent the night in the city. Monday between 6AM and 7AM a police car was parked at every overpass and every entrance ramp along a 20 mile stretch of the Interstate. Pedestrian bridges had police stationed on foot. St. Louis didn't have the money to plow snow from most city streets last winter. I wonder if we can afford street lights and sewage treatment now. Tom Adams tadams@sbctri.sbc.com adams@swbatl.sbc.com 314-529-7860 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #783 ******************************