TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 Nov 94 01:57:00 CST Volume 14 : Issue 408 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Caller-Charging 800 Numbers Should be *Banned* (Wes Leatherock) Re: Caller-Charging 800 Numbers Should be *Banned* (Mike King) MCI's 1-800-CALL-GOD (Steve Kass) Re: Charging for 800 Calls (was Re: 1-800-CALL-INFO) (Andrew Laurence) Re: Caller-Charging 800 Numbers Should be *Banned* (jwm) Re: 1-800-CALL-INFO (Eric Paulak) Re: Caller Charging 800 Numbers Should be *Banned* (Lauren Weinstein) Re: T-1 is Much Better Than Frame Relay (Matthew P. Downs) Re: What Does *67 do? (Matthew P. Downs) Re: T1 -> 24 x v.32 -> RS232 (Robert Mah) Re: Need Amp to Boost DTMF Strength (Dave Levenson) Re: Help With Ring Detector Circuit (John Lundgren) Re: NANP Nightmare (Bob Schwartz) 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: wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu Date: Tue, 09 Nov 94 06:44:12 GMT Subject: Re: Caller-Charging 800 Numbers Should be *Banned* > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ... [text deleted] ... > Unfortunatly, the established method of getting directory assistance > (by dialing areacode-555-1212) is monopolized by AT&T and the telcos > who properly suck up to them. No matter who you have as your > presubscribed long distance carrier, what happens when you dial > areacode-555-1212? Well, your call goes to AT&T and they charge you > 75 cents! So MCI is charging 75 cents just like AT&T, for two > requests just like AT&T, but how are they supposed to get access? I > guess they could go on 900 and do it, but the trouble with 900 is its > rotten reputation these days. Maybe they could use 700 (since all > carriers get to use the entire 700 space as they wish). PAT] Pat, I'm puzzled by your statement that directory assistance calls all go by AT&T. As a retired Southwestern Bell employee who fielded many complaints when charging for toll directory assistance began, I believe I became pretty familiar with calls to NPA-555-1212 and how they work. The directory assistance base is maintained by the LEC. A call to NPA-555-1212 is switched by any carrier just like any other call to a seven-digit number, and routes at the terminating area code to an LEC directory assistance operator. The LEC charges the IXC a fixed amount (I believe it used to be 45 or 50 cents, but I don't recall for sure and it may have changed in the last two or three years). The IXC can charge their customers whatever they wish or have tariffed, or can waive the charge if the customer then completes a call to the same area code. I have a various times been PIC'd to AT&T, MCI and Sprint, as well as carrying their credit cards. I have also been a user of 10XXX codes, for comparative purposes or just for the heck of it. The billing for NPA-555-1212 calls has always been from the carrier I was using at the time, whether the PIC'd carrier or the 10XXX carrier or the credit card carrier. In fact, I remember my last Sprint credit card bill had an entry for a call from Tulsa (area code 918) to 405-555-1212, immediately followed by a call to a number in Enid, Oklahoma (also in the 405 area and, as a matter of fact, the number I had just gotten by calling 405-555-1212.) As I say, the call to 405-555-1212 showed on my Sprint bill with a charge of ".00". I've never had an AT&T charge for a call to NPA-555-1212 unless AT&T was the carrier I was using at the time; in fact, I first started using MCI experimentally because their charge for a call to NPA-555-1212 was marginally less than AT&T's (5 cents cheaper, I believe). Wes Leatherock wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But *what company* actually serviced the call? What company responded to you? Whose operators were talking to you? In other words, if there is a telephone sitting somewhere with the number 555-1212 on the front of it, who is sitting there answering the calls? I believe it is AT&T in most or all cases. Have you forgotten how in the early days of competition MCI used to advise its customers to 'use AC-555-1212 for directory because it is free, then after you get the number place your call via MCI' ? Have you forgotten how the main reason AT&T quit giving free directory assistance -- a tradition for many, many years since the beginning of the phone itself -- was because all the come-latelys were getting AT&T to do the lookups for free while they in turn got the revenue for the call itself? Certainly, if you subscribe to MCI/Sprint/whoever you get billed by whoever ... but that is because the prime source of the information, that is, AT&T bills *them* just like it bills its own customers, and they in turn pass along the charge. That's all that's happening. So I still maintain that 555-1212 is still an AT&T monopoly: you can purchase the information direct from them (by default if their customer) or you can purchase the information *resold to you* by one of their competitors who obtains it for you transparently when you dial 555-1212 via one of the competitors. If some other carrier wants to run their own database -- not just buy and immediatly resell AT&T to you, they have to use some other number to do it on, since 555-1212 latches right into the AT&T centers. Did you think that somehow MCI and the others intercept calls to 555- 1212 and do their own thing with it? Not hardly ... so if MCI wants to collect its own data from whatever sources and sell its own data -- not just resell AT&T -- what telephone number should they use? PAT] ------------------------------ From: mk@TFS.COM (Mike King) Subject: Re: Caller-Charging 800 Numbers Should be *Banned* Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1994 00:52:27 GMT In TELECOM Digest V14 #401, Pat wrote: > Unfortunatly, the established method of getting directory assistance > (by dialing areacode-555-1212) is monopolized by AT&T and the telcos > who properly suck up to them. No matter who you have as your presubscribed > long distance carrier, what happens when you dial areacode-555-1212? > Well, your call goes to AT&T and they charge you 75 cents! So MCI is Um, Pat, I'm presubscribed to Sprint, and if I dial 1+NPA+555-1212, as 1long as the NPA is outside my LATA, the call is completed and billed by Sprint. It has worked that way for me ever since Equal Access, with service in three different RBOCS. At one time, AT&T would "forgive" up to two inter-LATA 555 calls a month, as long as two or more inter-LATA calls were placed via AT&T. I don't know if that's still true. I remember that for a long time, 1+NPA+555 calls could be made for free from public (LEC) pay phones, presumably because charged calls were also being completed from those phones. I never bothered to try from a COCOT. Mike King mk@tfs.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Read my earlier reply. You dial 555- 1212 and Sprint connects to an *AT&T directory assistance center somewhere* and you get your information. AT&T bills Sprint, Sprint bills you. As an experiment try dialing various AC-555-1212 and see how, as often as not the call is picked up with 'AT&T' as part of the answer phrase, regardless of which carrier you used to get there. Correct me if I am wrong. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1994 00:09:55 EST From: SKASS@drew.edu Subject: MCI's 1-800-CALL-GOD > From page 20 of my Bell Atlantic Morris County July 1994 -June 1995 telephone directory: "800 Service" There is no charge to you when you call "800" telephone numbers - - - - - - - To call an "800" number, dial 1 + 800 + 7-digit number Something is indeed wrong when "900" service providers must disclose phone-bill charges in the call, but not "800" providers. Steve Kass/ Drew U/ skass@drew.edu ------------------------------ From: laurence@netcom.com (Andrew Laurence) Subject: Re: Charging for 800 Calls (was Re: 1-800-CALL-INFO) Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1994 05:44:34 GMT Barry Margolin writes: > Imagine a law office that provides an 800 number, to make it easier > for clients to reach them from out of state. If I use that number to > call my lawyer, I wouldn't be surprised to be billed later for the > time that we spent on the phone. > The kicker is that I would also expect to be billed for the time if I > called their normal number. In fact, I would expect the bill to be > the same in either case -- I'm paying for the lawyer's time, not the > phone service. But most law firms attempt to capture long-distance calls made on behalf of a client and bill them to the client as case expenses (distinct from legal fees). If you called the 800 number, the law firm advanced those costs on your behalf and would likely bill you for them, whereas if you called the regular number, YOU paid those charges out of your own pocket. So while the LEGAL FEES for either situation would be the same, the billable COSTS would not be. Andrew Laurence Oakland, California USA laurence@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1994 01:55:30 GMT From: marya@titan.ucs.umass.edu (jwm) Subject: Re: Caller-Charging 800 Numbers Should be *Banned* Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst Our Moderator writes: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Would you also ban 1-800-CALL-ATT? As > memory serves, you can place long distance calls via that number and > one of the options is 'press (x) to have this call billed to the number > you are calling from ...' 1-800-CALL-ATT offers collect, third-party, person-to-person, calling card, and Visa/MasterCard billing. I have used the number for years, and I have never heard the prompt you describe. EasyReach 700 offers the bill-to-calling-number option, though. Perhaps this is the prompt you were thinking of. > Would you ban all the long distance companies > which use some 800 number as a way to reach their switch when other > access is unavailable (such as 10xxx being blocked) under the same > rationale, or is this National Pick On MCI Week? I wouldn't ban such services, but I would restrict them from billing calls to the calling number. I have both 3rd party and collect screening on my line, yet MCI (whose 1-800-COLLECT properly rejects calls to my number) accepted a 1-800-CALL-INFO call without requesting alternative billing arrangements. > Unfortunatly, the established method of getting directory assistance > (by dialing areacode-555-1212) is monopolized by AT&T and the telcos > who properly suck up to them. No matter who you have as your presubscribed > long distance carrier, what happens when you dial areacode-555-1212? > Well, your call goes to AT&T and they charge you 75 cents! So MCI is > charging 75 cents just like AT&T, for two requests just like AT&T, but > how are they supposed to get access? These are the people who helped bring down the mighty Bell System. Why couldn't they seek an extension of the equal access requirement for interLATA DA? It's simple: 1-NPA-555-1212 is routed to the presubscribed carrier. That carrier has facilities set up to handle such calls, and the RBOCs are required to provide each IXC with database access and operator services under the same agreement these companies have with AT&T. This would eliminate the scavenger hunt methodology MCI seems to be using in number collection, thereby improving the quality of service. 800 numbers could be maintained as strictly free of bill-to-calling-number charges, and all carriers would have the opportunity for an equal slice of the DA market. (Or at least a slice proportional to their presubscribed market share.) I'm surprised that such an arrangement wasn't worked out in the early 80's. No matter how you slice it, this "free call, charge for info" scheme smacks of deception. 800-based calling services that accept calling cards, credit cards, or require 3rd party or collect arrangements, and 800-based mail order lines require the caller to take a proactive step in order to be billed. If I give out a calling card number, or give an operator voice authorization to bill to my line, or charge merchandise, I *know* that I'm being charged, and there is relatively little danger of my casually or mistakenly approving charges to my account. 1-800-CALL-INFO and services of its kind make this kind of billing very likely, and to some extent rely on public ignorance about the intricacies of modern telephony. Jeffrey W. McKeough marya@titan.ucs.umass.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 94 00:20:00 EDT From: ccmi@clark.net (Eric Paulak) Subject: Re: 1-800-CALL-INFO Due to some well thought-out lobbying on the part of both long distance and local carriers, directory assistance services were given an exemption to the regulations that govern 800 pay-per-call services. So, even though 1-800-CALL-INFO is in all sense of the word an 800 pay-per-call service, it does not have to list its rates during the call, it does not have to print its rates at a certain size in ralationship to the rest of its ads, it does not require presubscription and the person calling does not have to be the person under whose name the phone is listed. As a result, even though Nynex, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth and Ameritech will not currently bill for 800 pay-per-call services, they will pass the bills through for 1-800-CALL-INFO. Pat, the attatched article is to be printed as my weekly column in Network World magazine on Oct. 24th. Because of copyright, it must have the Network World name and date published with it. ------------------ Rate & Tariff Monitor 1-800-CALL-INFO: Just Another Pay-Per-Call Number by Eric Paulak 1-800-COLLECT was a marketing coup for MCI. It took an overlooked service -- collect calling -- that AT&T controlled and turned it on its head, saving callers money and earning MCI a bundle at the same time. But now the carrier has gone to far. In a new attempt to take over an AT&T-controlled fringe market -- long distance directory assistance -- MCI has launched 1-800-CALL-INFO. The national directory service does offer some benefits over standard directory service -- it gives you two numbers for the price of one -- but there's some question as to how accurate the service is, plus it could ultimately cost businesses more. In addition, 1-800-CALL- INFO gives all the appearances of an 800 pay-per-call number, which has many users irate. The way 1-800-CALL-INFO works is that a caller dials the number -- 1- 800-225-5463 -- and tells the operator a city and state or country and the person's name. Callers are allowed to get two numbers with each call for $.75, compared to $.75/number with standard directory assistance. That charge is then billed back on your local bill. In addition, after the operator gives you the numbers, you also get the option of having your call placed over MCI's network and billed at MCI's Residential Dial 1 rates or international Direct Distance Dial rates. If you're an MCI residential customer, this is actually a good deal for you. The calls count toward any savings plan you have, and you get two directory assistance numbers for the price of one. úÿ If you're a business user -- whether with MCI or any other carrier -- this service is nothing but bad news. You would get hit with the $.75 charge no matter what DA service someone called. But with the option to have the call placed at MCI's Residential Dial 1 rates, you'll end up with callers bypassing your cheaper businesses rates. How much could it cost you? MCI's Residential Dial 1 rates are $.2299 to $.3299/minute, depending on mileage. Whereas, MCI's most expensive Vnet rates are $.203 to $.262/minute, also depending on mileage. MCI says they eventually will make 1-800-CALL-INFO part of its businesses services, but when specifically, they won't say. The lower business rates aren't the only thing you lose by dialing 1- 800-CALL-INFO; you also lose the added volume towards your volume discounts. Miss a volume commitment, and you could end up paying hefty penalties. And while you're paying the higher rates, you may not even be getting the right phone numbers. When checking out the service, I asked for numbers for two people -- one in Omaha and one in Shepherdstown, W.V. -- both of whom moved to new locations about six months ago. MCI's operators gave me their old numbers. Calls to the NPA-555-1212 operator yielded the correct numbers. About a dozen subscribers to an Internet list-serve called the Telecom Digest had the same problem. MCI has its own proprietary database of phone numbers that it uses and admits that there may be a few errors. But as the service matures, the number of errors will be reduced. In the meantime, if MCI does give you a wrong number, you can get the $.75 credited back to you. People shouldn't be surprised that MCI has come out with 1-800-CALL-INFO. After all, MCI does provide service to about two-thirds of all the dial- a-porn services that are out there, according to a list of 800 pay-per-call numbers CCMI has compiled. The only difference between this service and a sex line is that as a directory assistance service, 1-800-CALL-INFO is exempt from having to get prior approval before billing you. MCI also doesn't have to tell you the cost of the call upfront. To avoid getting hit with these charges, you have two options; you can block (800) 225-5463 in your PBX; or you can have MCI screen the call for you. To have the calls screened, you have to call MCI at (800) 677-6580, or fax a list of phone numbers on company letterhead you want screened to (904) 857-4079. With the screening service, users would still be able to call from your business, but they would have to bill it to a credit card or a third party. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Nov 94 20:09:00 PST From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Re: Caller Charging 800 Numbers Should Be *Banned* As Pat mentioned in a comment to a previous message, I feel that it is not appropriate for charges to be applied to the caller's phone bill (for any reason) as the result of an 800 call. I don't care if the callee says they are charging for the information and not the call -- the bottom line is that you make the call, and an arbitrary charge shows up on your bill. You have no warning that it is a charging call, and you have no reasonable way to block such calls. Pat's right of course that (area code)+555-1212 was once a free call. But there's a big difference between changing the status of a single set of seven digits that (as far as most people are concerned) "lives" all by itself, versus suddenly facing the prospect that any random 800 number -- an entire area code we've come to expect to be non-charging to the caller -- might now (surprise) charge the caller! I also agree with the suggestion that the most reasonable solution is to move *all* 800 calls that have the potential of placing a charge on the caller's phone bill to some other area code. If a service is offered via an 800 number, they can make other billing arrangements with the caller. But make the phone bill chargers and alternate carrier access numbers move over to 700, or 500, or some other area code -- the technology is now in place to allow plenty of new code assignments, especially with the removal of the second digit 0/1 area code restrictions. Pat mentioned that such services could move over to 900, but then suggested that 900 has a pretty bad reputation these days. In fact, I can't see any difference between charging the caller to an 800 number and charging the caller to a 900 number -- except that in the case of 800 numbers there's no subscriber-based blocking, there are non-caller-charging calls you still want to reach, there's no warning of charges, and apparently no established mechanisms to dispute such charges. I would submit that if caller-charging 800 numbers continue to be allowed and expand, and continue to become the obvious 900-blocking workaround that they are, it won't be long at all before 800 numbers cause the same concerns to callers that 900 numbers do now. That could be devastating to the conventional users of 800 numbers who just want a mechanism for their customers to use that doesn't charge the caller. The whole concept of caller-charging 800 numbers needs to be reconsidered -- and the faster the better. --Lauren-- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My thanks to several other writers who commented on this topic but have not been included here. And to the several of you (also not included here) who mentioned that you subscribe to carrier 'X' and get your DA calls billed by carrier 'X', all I can say is ask your carrier who *they* purchase the information from which they immediatly and transparently resell to you. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mpd@adc.com (Matthew P. Downs) Subject: Re: T-1 is Much Better Than Frame Relay Date: 10 Nov 1994 00:31:29 GMT Organization: ADC Telecommunications jbucking@pinot.callamer.com (Jeff Buckingham) writes: > We had an interesting experience at Call America triing to buy Frame > Relay. We needed to connect offices in Salinas, Fresno, Bakersfield, > and Santa Barbara with our Main office in San Luis Obispo. We had > planned to connect to frame relay at the T-1 level from San Luis > Obispo. The other offices were going to be connected at the 56k level. > The bids we got from AT&T, MCI, and Sprint were about $6700.00 per > month. > We then discovered that we can purchase T-1's to each office for about > $2000.00 per month. This was very interesting because we were able to > buy 24 times the bandwidth for 1/3 of the price. > We are a long distance carrier and we do purchase T-1's for about 7- 15 > cents per circuit mile (each T-1 has 24 circuit miles per mile of > distance) so our situation may be different from some end users but I > really think that the whole frame relay thing is vastly over hyped and > many companies are being sold frame relay who do not really need it. I was always under the impression that the advantages for Frame Relay was realized when full T1 utilization was not needed. Therefore, it makes sense to me that it would cost more for what you described. Or alternatively, it was tarrifed that way in order to catch people that don't understand and get full T1 frame relay set-up. Of course, justifying it to the PUC by saying we have to recover the cost of the equipment. 8^) ... Matt ------------------------------ From: mpd@adc.com (Matthew P. Downs) Subject: Re: What Does *67 do? Date: 09 Nov 1994 22:33:10 GMT Organization: ADC Telecommunications rpatt@netcom.com (Robert Patterson) writes: > I live in the San Francisco Bay Area under the auspices of PacBell. > They do not offer CallerID. When I dial *67 (apparently the CallerID > on/off signal) I get a couple of clicks and a dial tone. The > switching department at PacBell vehemently claims that nothing is > happening. Anyone with an idea? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What's happening is that the local > switch is accepting your command to 'do not pass calling number ID > to call recipient' just as it is supposed to do. And then, it proceeds > not to give out that information ... which it wouldn't do anyway > under the present circumstances there, but that is beside the point. > They are using a version of software which allows for *67 and it > is probably easier for them to leave it as is rather than disable > the use of that command (which does nothing anyway). For instance, > in some exchanges in Chicago which were not Caller-ID equipped, meaning > calls from phones in that area showed up as 'out of area' on caller > identification boxes elsewhere, *67 still worked as you describe. I > guess they figured soon enough it would have a purpose, so they just > left it alone. I imagine PacBell feels the same way. Why bother to > change/eliminate it everywhere then possibly have to go and put it > back in at a future time. PAT] I have had different meanings for *67, like auto redial last person who called me, etc. The numbers depend upon which local carrier you have ... Matt [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Umm ... I think *60 and *65 have some meaning here for 'last number redial' and things like that. I no longer subscribe to any of those things. Does anyone have a complete list of the 'star codes' as they relate to all the new features? PAT] ------------------------------ From: rmah@panix.com (Robert Mah) Subject: Re: T1 -> 24 x v.32 -> RS232 Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1994 10:52:07 -0500 Organization: One Step Beyond Lance Ellinghaus wrote: > A company called Primary Access has a product that will take a T1 (24 > VOICE channels) and interpret the DS0 channels as modem connections > (v.32, v.42bis, etc..) and output standard RS232 to hook to a system. > What other companies have something like this? Comments on their > products? Contacts to get more information? Well, their domain name is PRIACC.COM, but they only seem to have e-mail connectivity at the moment (no WWW, FTP, etc.). If you get any pricing info on this product/service, I would be interested as a normal channel bank costs mucho money. Cheers, Robert S. Mah Software Development +1.212.947.6507 One Step Beyond and Network Consulting rmah@panix.com ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Need Amp to Boost DTMF Strength Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1994 17:14:15 GMT Les Reeves (lreeves@crl.com) wrote: > WATS resellers used the R-TEC (Reliance Comm/Tec) VFR5050 2-Wire to > 2-Wire repeater for boosting signals. The repeater is easy to set up, > and unconditionally stable. It automatically disables itself when > data carriers of any sort are detected. I use one of these on an OPX line between a Panasonic PBX and an off-premises station. I don't particularly like it, however. It is half-duplex, like a speakerphone. You can't interrupt a long-talking far-end speaker, and you can't hear the far end at all if there is a significant background noise level at the near end. But, can anybody suggest a better solution? Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: jlundgre@kn.PacBell.COM (John Lundgren) Subject: Re: Help With Ring Detector Circuit Date: 09 Nov 1994 21:22:58 GMT Organization: Pacific Bell Knowledge Network Tyson Norris (tyson@mailhost.ecn.uoknor.edu) wrote: > I am trying to build some sort of ring dectection circuit for > an answering machine. Basically I just need the lines to be connected to > the machine when the voltage goes above 90 (ring) and disconnected when > the voltage drops to 8 (calling party hangs up). I know I'm going to have > to use some sort of relays etc. but have little experience and would > appreciate any pointers anyone would offer. I've used NE-2H neon bulbs for a ring detector. They're available at Radio Snack. I put one in series with a 22K resistor across the incoming line. Polarity isn't important. The bulb is put next to a photocell inside a small bottle cap or other dark opaque container, and some black silicone seal to hold it in place and keep out the light. The leads of the photocell are run to the plus voltage and the base of a transistor, with enough current capacity to drive a relay. Put a .1 uF capacitor across the photocell to keei transients from activating the relay. Depending on the current, you might need two transistors connected in Darlington fashion. Again, the polarity of the photocell isn't important. John Lundgren - Elec Tech - Info Tech Svcs Rancho Santiago Community College District 17th St. at Bristol \ Santa Ana, CA 92706 jlundgre@pop.rancho.cc.ca.us\jlundgr@eis.calstate.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Re: NANP Nightmare From: bob@bci.nbn.com (Bob Schwartz) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 94 16:02:33 PDT Organization: Bill Correctors, Inc., Marin County, California ganek@apollo.hp.com (Daniel E. Ganek) writes: > In article vantek@sequoia.northcoast. > com (Van Hefner) writes: >> Boston Business Misses Phone Calls Due to Bungled Exchange >> Oct. 8 -- Lori Moretti lives to hear the phone ring. But since she >> recently moved her public relations firm to its new Boston locale near >> Fort Point Channel, the lines have been unusually quiet. > [ Story about a company losing business because of a new phobe exchange] >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: NYNEX cannot really be blamed because >> the proprietors of some private phone systems at large companies, >> universities, etc are klutzes. People wanted a telephone network where >> everyone did thier own thing, so that's what they got now over ten >> years ago. I used to work for a large department store downtown on a >> part time basis trying to straighten out the mess that predecessors >> had made of the Rolm PBX there. It was a mess! There were lots of > Question: Why do private systems require such programming at all? > If I dial an unused exchange NYNEX tells me. Why don't private systems > just put the call thru and let the CO handle it?? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They rarely 'require' such programming and > can in fact be configured to just let everything past unchecked. The reason > this is not often done is because the owner of the private system has no > convenient method of collecting the charges from his users, so rather than > lose large amounts of money from users who would otherwise get a free ride > on his phone system, all sorts of obstacles are programmed into the switch > to make 'unauthorized' calls difficult or impossible to complete. Where > the problem comes in is that telco can't (usually) be counted on to refuse > to complete calls with toll charges attached. Usually whatever protection > the PBX has against fraud and misuse has to come as a result of the owner > installing it. Deciding which outgoing calls are going to result in > simply reaching a telco intercept and which are going to result in big $$ > billed to the owner is difficult; thus the owner has to take on the > burden of sorting it all out. PAT] Pat, If I am a LARGE user, the type that tends to have a PBX in the first place, then I need this information on new prefixes and area codes for my ARS (Automatic Route Selection) or FRS (foreign route selection, or LCR (least cost routing) tables in order to take advantage of FEX circuits, tie lines, feature group connections, intra company off premises routing via centrex lines or a myriad of other factors that have little or nothing to do with fraud or collecting from users. It has everything to do with keeping costs down. Financial Telecommunications Management, our specialty. Regards, Bob Schwartz bob@bci.nbn.com Bill Correctors, Inc. +1 415 488 9000 Marin County, California ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #408 ******************************