TELECOM Digest Tue, 7 Feb 95 00:53:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 81 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Straight Talk About the Information Superhighway" (Rob Slade) GTE PCS/Global Roam (Bernard Cerier) Caller ID and Call Waiting (Evan Champion) Re: Old Phone Number Format Question (Charles Shukis) Re: Old Phone Number Format Question (Al Varney) Re: MCI Strikes Again (Christopher Harwood Snider) Re: How I Fooled Caller ID (Shawn Gordhamer) Re: How I Fooled Caller ID (John Lundgren) Basic LAN/WAN Internetworking Cliff Notes Needed (guest machine) Professional Voice Prompts For IVR etc. (Evan Berle) Another A&T 500 Service Mixup (Matthew Spaethe) Re: MCI Gave me a Deal (Michael P. Deignan) Re: MCI Gave me a Deal (Christopher Harwood Snider) Re: MCI Bureaucratic Blunder (Richard Masoner) Re: Fraudulent Call Forwarding (Robert S. Helfman) 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 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: 500-677-1616 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. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 06 Feb 1995 14:25:05 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: "Straight Talk About the Information Superhighway" BKSTINSH.RVW 941226 "Straight Talk About the Information Superhighway", Goldsborough, 1994, 1- 56761-513-9, U$19.99/C$26.99 %A Reid Goldborough %C 8219 Northwest Blvd., Indianapolis, IN 46278 %D 1994 %G 1-56761-513-9 %I Alpha Books/MacMillan Publishing, USA %O U$19.99/C$26.99 800-858-7674 %P 340 %T "Straight Talk About the Information Superhighway" Yes, by all means, let us have some straight talk about the information superhighway. The author waffles around with terms like "vehicle for the delivery ... of ... multimedia," but the reality is that the phrase was and is a speech-writer's icon. The slogan is very environmentally friendly: it has been reused in ever-broader situations, recycled in more promotions and speeches, and, in the process, reduced almost to meaninglessness. Goldsborough, in common with many who have only a tenuous grasp on the concepts, attempts to marry the widespread, anarchic, and still experimental Internet with the tightly-controlled "providers" of electronic media. (He also attempts to expand the collection of information supercliches with "infopike". Since he uses this to draw an analogy to the toll-road turnpikes of the northeastern United States, it is easy to see where his sympathies lie.) The book is a collection of enthusiastic essays about life in the telecom- rich future, with a piece concluding each chapter by some politician, "industry leader", Famous Person, or other "expert". Sometimes, it's hard to determine whether the "viewpoint" is an addendum to the chapter, the chapter is an introduction to the viewpoint, or whether both are related solely by proximity. The author must be sensitive, in advance, to possible charges that this material is all very "blue sky". After the opening story, he argues that this is not a fantasy, but that future technology will be very much like it. Of course, the technologies presented -- email, multimedia extensions, teleconferencing, voice recognition and macros -- are all available *now*, but it is obvious that Goldsborough is not really experienced in the most effective ways to use them. This is an extended series of the usual mass-media magazine articles, high on "gee whiz!" and low on content. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1994 BKSTINSH.RVW 941226. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Vancouver ROBERTS@decus.ca Institute for Robert_Slade@sfu.ca Research into rslade@cue.bc.ca User p1@CyberStore.ca Security Canada V7K 2G6 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 15:26:29 -0500 From: BERNARD.CERIER@gte.sprint.com Subject: GTE PCS/Global Roam Pat, Information you may find of interest. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Forwarded By Mac SprintMail >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> February 2, 1995 GTE PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES AND DEUTSCHE TELEKOM MOBILFUNK GMBH (DETEMOBIL) ANNOUNCE GLOBALROAM(SM), AN INTERNATIONAL CELLULAR ROAMING SERVICE; GTE OFFERS FLAT RATE AIRTIME CHARGE IN EUROPE AND OTHER CONTINENTS GTE Personal Communications Services and DeTeMobil today announced an agreement to offer international cellular roaming service. With the service, called GlobalRoam(SM), a traveler's cellular roaming capability will ultimately be expanded to most countries in the world. "American business travelers will have the same communications mobility from country to country as they already have domestically from city to city," said Jerry Waylan, executive vice president-product management and business development, GTE PCS. "Our research clearly indicates a need and desire for this service." In 1993, 3.7 million business people traveled between the U.S. and Europe," said Roland Mahler, executive director of product management mobile telephony services, DeTeMobil. "As the marketplace becomes increasingly global, we are making sure that business communications are keeping pace." Through this agreement, each company will have its own gateway to provide interoperability between their two different cellular transmission standards. GTE, along with all other carriers in North and South America, uses analog cellular radio technology known as the AMPS standard, which stands for Advanced Mobile Phone Service. Most other countries in the world have adopted a digital cellular system known as the GSM standard, which stands for Global System for Mobile communications. Deutsche Telekom, the parent company of DeTeMobil, played a leading role in the development of GSM. Initially, DeTeMobil subscribers will have access to North American cellular services. Through international roaming agreements between DeTeMobil and other GSM network operators, North American subscribers, through their local carriers, will be able to use worldwide GSM networks. In the summer of 1995, GlobalRoam will be available in more than 30 countries, and will eventually be expanded to include countries with other cellular standards. GTE PCS will market the service initially to large U.S. corporate customers and then to North American cellular carriers including GTE Mobilnet and Contel Cellular, who will offer the service to their customers under the GlobalRoam service name. DeTeMobil will offer GlobalRoam to GSM cellular carriers. Subscribers to the GlobalRoam service will receive a "smart card," programmed with an identification number and other customer information. For travel outside the U.S. and Canada, they will purchase or rent a GSM mobile phone that accepts the card. The phones will be available for overnight shipment. When subscribers use the phone in a foreign network, calls to their home cellular phone number will automatically be directed to their GSM phone, which will operate in any country where DeTeMobil has a roaming agreement with the respective network operator. "Ultimately, we expect manufacturers to develop dual mode, AMPS/GSM cellular phones, which can be used at home as well as in other countries," Waylan said. All charges will appear on the customers "home" cellular phone bill as international roaming charges. The GlobalRoam service will be made available to cellular carriers at a flat wholesale rate, per-minute airtime charge, plus toll, and a one-time activation fee with recurring monthly charges per subscriber. Cellular carriers can then retail this service to their subscribers. Additionally, as an option, the carrier can provide to North American travelers a debit "smart card." A $100 debit card, for example, would cover the cost of $100 in airtime and toll charges. The debit card will initially be available for use in Germany. GTE Telecommunication Services Inc. (GTE TSI) will facilitate this service by providing the AMPS/GSM gateway in North America. In addition, GTE TSI -- which provides advanced software services to the wireless industry -- will provide billing record translation and clearing services so that charges for the international roaming service will be included on customers standard cellular telephone bills. For additional information on this service, call 1-800-798- ROAM. Deutsche Telekom Mobilfunk GmbH (DeTeMobil), headquartered in Bonn, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Deutsche Telekom AG, dealing with mobile communication services. The company is Germanys largest provider of these services and one of the largest in Europe with more than 2.2 million customers at the end of 1994. DeTeMobil is the operator of the digital network D1 and played a leading role in the development of the successful international GSM standard Global System for Mobile Communications. GlobalRoam to be available in summer 1995 in these countries: Australia Latvia Austria Luxembourg Belgium Netherlands Canada Norway Denmark Philippines Estonia Portugal Finland Singapore France South Africa Germany Spain Greece Sweden Hong Kong Switzerland Hungary Turkey Iceland United Arab Emirates Indonesia United Kingdom Ireland United States Italy # # # ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 20:10:40 +0000 From: evan champion Subject: Caller ID and Call Waiting Organization: Bell Northern Research This is a problem that I'm sure is shared by many people who have caller ID and call waiting. If you have caller ID, you have probably grown very attached to that "reassuring" feeling of knowing that the person at the other end is not a telemarketer, or similarly disfunctional individual, but rather you best friend Bob. Now, the problem is that if you are on the phone and someone calls in, you get the call waiting beep but no indication of who the second caller is. Caller ID is not applied to the call waiting service. Is there a reason why caller ID cannot be used with call waiting? I would pay dearly to be able to get call display and name display working with call waiting. (I am a Bell Canada subscriber, but I suspect this problem affects more than just us Canucks). Evan [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is a two-part answer here. The first part is why it cannot work, and the scond part is about how it will soon be changed so it does work. The present arrangement is that the data has to be sent when the phone is on hook. If you are willing to disconnect your call in progress and hang up completely (rather than just flashing the hook and putting the first party on hold) then you *will* get the CID for the new call. The data gets sent to your box between the first and second *actual ring at your end*. This means it could 'ring' five times in the caller's ear and you would get a couple of call waiting tones. You finally tell your caller you want to see about the other call and will call him back later. You disconnect and the call waiting starts ringing at your end. Watch your ID box; the calling number will show up there immed- iatly. The ID comes between the first and second ring *you hear* from the actual bell on your phone. Now if it is someone you do not want to talk to, well, you are sort of stuck at that point. I guess you let it ring through to your answering machine or voicemail. That is another curious point: Even though you have voicemail you might have noticed that the call waiting won't transfer there after three/four rings like other calls. Well, it will, but again, its after three/four rings *that you hear* -- not the artificial 'rings' the caller gets in his ear. A sophisticated caller who knows that he always gets your voicemail after three/four rings calls and it rings ten times in his ear *then* he gets your voicemail realizes you were there, and on a call, and chose not to take his call once you saw who was on the ID box. That is going to change however. We had a report here not long ago about 'Caller-ID on Call Waiting' (I believe that is what it is called) and how it will be implemented later this year in many places. My understanding is you'll need to have a special kind of phone to make it work. It will work sort of like call waiting does now, where the central office gets on your pair, and for a split second breaks the path to the person you are talking to in order to send the spurts of tone. Its going to do that same kind of thing with Caller ID on Call Waiting in the future. Existing display boxes and phones will not be compatible however. Would whoever sent in that report send it again as there have been others asking. PAT] ------------------------------ From: shukisc@ix.netcom.com (Charles Shukis) Subject: Re: Old Phone Number Format Question Date: 6 Feb 1995 00:22:26 GMT Organization: Netcom >>> The following question appeared recently in the Old Time Radio >>> Digest mailing list, and seems tailor-made for an answer from this >>> forum. >>> From: "Richard M. Weil" >>> The number for the store in Rockford was curiously 8-22-47. I'm >>> too young to know anything about 5 digit phone numbers. Is that >>> how it was back then in small cities? Gee, all this talk of 5-digit numbers makes me feel old! I grew up in a small town in western Pennsylvania, and in the late 1940's, our phone number was 849M. No idea why the "M" instead of a fourth number, but the line was a four-party line (private lines were extremely rare -- most everybody I knew had a party line). The phone would ring when any one of the party-line subscribers were called ... each had his own distinctive ringing pattern. Ours was two longs and two shorts, or some such thing. The only way to tell if the line was in use was to pick up the receiver and listen. One of the other subscribers on our line had a daughter quite a few years older than I, and I must admit that I didn't always hang up when I heard her on the phone. Never listened long, though, because I found "girl talk" boring ... "mushy" was the word used in those days, I believe. "Crossed connections" were not uncommon in the days of mechanical CO's (anybody remember the cats' eyes?), either, so we frequently got to listen to conversations between other subscribers, as well. No taps, no bugs, no scanners: the telephone was a source of entertainment as well as a means of communications. I don't know what the laws were then, but I probably committed my first felony, or at least misdemeanor, before I was five years old! As we got older, we found another way to use the phone for entertainment: "prank" calls. Call the local drugstore ... "Do you have Prince Albert in a can?" ... 'Yes, we do.' ... "Well, you'd better let him out before he suffocates!" Such shenanigans are a thing of the past, killed by ANI, CID, auto call-back, auto call-trace, and the like ... perhaps it's just as well. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For those unaware, 'Prince Albert' was a type of smoking tobacco used in a pipe. I guess they still make it. The other variation on this was to call someone late at night and claim to be the Electric Company, asking 'is your refrigerator running?' Some fools would actually put the phone down and go into the kitchen to see, then come back and say it was. "Then you better stop it before it runs away and you never see it again ...". To five and six year old children, those jokes are very funny, especially when played on an 'old person' late at night, after the 'old person' was already in bed asleep and the child should have been but wasn't. The 'M' (like J, W, and R) were just keys to tell the operator which party on the line was to be rung. The switchboards had four buttons marked M,J,W,R and the operator would press down on one of these buttons while pulling the ringing key. Whichever one she pressed sent the current one way or another down the party line to ring the one bell, and only the one bell similarly wired. Other places had the 'short/long' ringing system as you mentioned, where all bells were wired in common, and the subscriber was relied upon to know which to answer and which to ignore. PAT] ------------------------------ From: varney@usgp4.ih.att.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: Old Phone Number Format Question úÿ Organization: AT&T Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 07:40:29 GMT In article , Michael Dillon wrote: > In article , uoknor.edu> wrote: >>> From: "Richard M. Weil" >>> The number for the store in Rockford was curiously 8-22-47. I'm >>> too young to know anything about 5 digit phone numbers. Is that >>> how it was back then in small cities? > Too young, eh? > In the early 1970's I lived near Moonstone, Ontario in Canada. At the > time we got phone service from the Moonstone Telephone Company which > was bought by Bell in 1972 I believe. Before Bell came in, our number > was 33-W-21. The way it was explained to me was that 33 was our line I grew up on a farm outside a small Kansas town, with manual phone lines run by Southwestern Bell. I still have a yardstick from the local lumber yard with "Phone 37" on it. Around 1959 they put in a small SXS CDO and dial phones. And everybody got a four-digit phone number in the block of 32xx to 35xx. Since business (and businessmen's homes) had all the two-digit numbers, they were converted to the 32xx block by prefixing "32". So the lumber yard got 3237 and his house got 3236. His widow still has that number. Southwestern Bell replaced the SXS in 1993 with a digital switch, and forced everyone to seven-digit local dialing. Virtually every business still has a NXX-32xx number. (The fire department has 3210.) For my home town, the current phone book (6" by 9" format) has just over three pages. My dad has the distinction (since his mother died in 1980) of being the only "V" entry. Al Varney ------------------------------ From: Christopher Harwood Snider Subject: Re: MCI Strikes Again Organization: University of Virginia Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 15:43:32 GMT jenkins@visar.wustl.edu writes: > 3) MCI missed the boat. When I called, they seemed to think nothing > of the fact that the long-distance service was not in my name. > 4) Telecom*USA, when informed of the whole proceedings, declared that I > had a "$5 minimum usage" charge on my acount. When in reality, I didn't. > 5) Southwestern Bell AND MCI don't compare notes when user's start > complaining about mis-billing. Only when state agencies get in the > act, do they begin to resolve the problem. > Is it over? I don't believe it will end until the PSC gets involved again. > This is a time that makes me wish there were two local companies. That way > the competition would force them to be as caring of their users as they are > about their money. > On the other hand, I believe that Murphy was an optimist. Michael, If I'm not mistaken, Telecom*USA is a subsidiary of MCI. I've looked at their rates, and they are not pretty. The MCI F&F program beats them and there are even better rates out there. It really is worth it to look around. Regards, Christopher H. Snider Telecommunications Consulting American Access chs2c@virginia.edu ------------------------------ From: shawnlg@netcom.com (Shawn Gordhamer) Subject: Re: How I Fooled Caller ID Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 18:58:14 GMT Could you send the data while your phone is ringing? I've heard that you can put resistors across your line and talk to someone while your phone is ringing, and the phone company doesn't know it's picked up. This implies that you can send data yourself between rings. Is this true? Shawn Gordhamer shawnlg@netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, you can put a resistor across the line then attach a listening device behind that and listen all you want without being detected. That's how phones are tapped. And, I suppose you could send data, since as far as everyone else is concerned, your phone is still on hook. But how would the person who is attempting to spoof *your* display box know that you had such resistance on your line unless he came to your house and put it there himself? Seems like a lot of trouble to me. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jlundgre@kn.PacBell.COM (John Lundgren) Subject: Re: How I Fooled Caller ID Date: 6 Feb 1995 19:48:29 GMT Organization: Pacific Bell Knowledge Network Clifton T. Sharp (clifto@indep1.chi.il.us) wrote: >> Standalone Caller ID boxes that display calling number, or calling >> number and name, "listen" all the time, and any time a valid incoming >> Caller ID comes in, they display it! I checked several brands, and >> they all behaved this way. Someone should alert the telcos and > Not the Radio Shack 43-951 (sold some years ago); it only supplies +5V > to its XR2206 chip between the first and second rings. I don't believe > my AT&T model 85 will, either, but haven't been inside it. The XR2206 chip requires a _minimum_ of 10 volts to operate. The above statement sounds bogus to me. 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\jlundgre@kn.pacbell.com ------------------------------ From: guest machine Subject: Basic LAN/WAN Internetworking Cliff Notes Needed Date: 7 Feb 1995 00:59:00 GMT Organization: Loyola University of Chicago Can you assist with a brief discussion on the basics behind LAN/WAN technology and internetworking? I'm interviewing for a job and am not all that familiar with this area. I don't need the techy version, but just need to be able to talk intelligently about LANS/WANS, hubs and routers. I would like information on the major players in these areas. i.e cisco Systems, Synoptics, etc. Thanks; I really appreciate any assistance here. ------------------------------ From: evan@pubnix.net (Evan Berle) Subject: Professional Voice Prompts for IVR etc. Date: 7 Feb 1995 02:52:09 GMT Organization: Vox Box Are you involved in setting up: Automated Attendants Voice Mail Interactive Voice Response Systems Fax-Back Systems Automated Call Directors ... or any other system that prompts the user with voice? Are you looking for professional voice prompts? Check out the VOX BOX home page at HTTP://www.pubnix.net/~evan using Netscape or any other graphical browser. VOX BOX provides voice prompts and on-hold advertising to telephone companies and end-users. Evan Berle Montreal, CANADA. evan@nash.pubNIX.QC.CA ------------------------------ From: mspaethe@umr.edu (Matthew Spaethe) Subject: AT&T 500 Service Date: 6 Feb 1995 19:30:37 GMT Organization: UMR Missouri's Technological University On September 4, 1994, I reserved 1-500-FOR-MATT (which is a non-guaranteed reservation). I was told that that number was not being used, and they would do whatever would be possible to get me that number. For the next months, I called and called to check up on the status of the 500 assignments. Well, on Jan 3,1995, I ordered my 500 number which was scheduled to go into service on Feb 3,1995. Then my 700 number was supposed to be cancelled at the same time. Well in late January, my number was working, but someone else was answering the call. I called AT&T, and they told me to just wait until Feb 3, and it should work then. Yesterday was Feb 3, and I called them. They were going to assign my 700 master pin to my 500 number that evening. I called back later to ask a question, and now they had NO RECORD EVER of me ever wanting a 500 number. I was informed that the 500 number belonged to someone else! NO RECORD OF ANY CONVERSATION! NONE!! NADA!!! They told me they were sorry, but there was nothing they could do. Believe me, I was very upset. Not just losing my number, but not having any record of talking to them. I kept asking them about all the literature I have that I requested! It's got my name, my address, etc. They set me up a new 500 number in 55 minutes. It went from a month to 55 minutes! My voice mail still doesn't let me in, and they keep trying to fix it. United Telephone doesn't know how to bill the 500 call, so I must use a calling card. MANY MANY little things ... I know that "my" 500 number terminates in NY, and that I believe that person also had 0-700-MATTHEW. It wouldn't suprise me if he worked for AT&T (since their headquarters is located at 195 Broadway). It's just very very very weird for all information about my 500 number to be GONE! VANISHED!. Four of my five lines are now on MCI, enjoying my 0.06/min night rate ... Matt :( * Internet: mspaethe@mcimail.com * PGP Public Key: finger mspaethe@franklin.ee.umr.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, you might check again. Very possibly the computer was 'down' when you called and they could not 'find a record' of any previous calls. Sometimes when they are without computer they try to bluff as they go along ("I don't have all of your records available to me right now ..."). What you are saying could be true, but I have never seen them quite that bad, that they lost everything. In other news, *my* 500 number started working perfectly today. About 3 PM Monday I tried dialing 0-500 and 1-500 and as before, got nowhere. But I had already found out both versions work fine from Chicago. I called repair service on a lark and ask them 'when is 500 going to be unblocked?' I got a call back within ten minutes from a woman very eager to hear all about it. She insisted all was working fine. "Not in the Skokie CO," I told her. She seemed astounded to hear that but said she would look into it right away. Another five or ten minutes goes past and she calls me again to advise "I fixed it. The translations were not loaded is all ... you can use it now." Of course I tried it immediatly after disconnecting with her, and sure enough, it worked fine, twenty minutes or less after calling repair service. Amazing ... absolutely amazing. An interesting side to this is when I use my own phone to dial 1-500-677-1616 (my number) it rings once and I am told it will try my alternate numbers (because it found my home number to be busy). When I do 0-500-677-1616 and tell it to bill the call to the phone I am using, it vanishes for a couple seconds and I get call- waiting, then after four rings (call waiting or not) it interupts and a voice message says it will try my alternate numbers. I did not bother with AT&T voicemail; I have voicemail up the kazooey from a few other places I rarely use. Anyway, feel free to call me at any reasonable hour: 500-677- 1616. PAT] ------------------------------ From: md@pstc3.pstc.brown.edu (Michael P. Deignan) Subject: Re: MCI Gave me a Deal Date: 6 Feb 1995 11:56:58 GMT Organization: Population Studies & Training Center > MCI called yesterday, and made me an offer I didn't want to refuse. > 50% off on all calls for six months. After that, 50% off on calls to > MCI customers (no list required) and 25% off (if I recall correctly) > to everyone else. I saw a commercial for this last night. I thought it stooped to a new sleazy low in marketing. At the very end, MCI claims you "always save over AT&T True USA" and then in little letters that I needed to squint to see, next to "True USA" were the words "ex promo". Wow, what a deal. What next? "Save 99% on all calls" and then in a four point font "compared to AT&T's rates 30 years ago!" I think the public is rapidly becoming burnt out on these percentage "savings" compared to some obscure number nobody ever mentions. I don't know a single person who doesn't flip the station when a long distance advertisement comes on. In my opinion, Sprint is the real winner now, with their penny-per- minute promo. At least you know what you're paying and when the rate is applicable. With the other two, its a percentage crap-shoot over some elusive "basic" rate. MD ------------------------------ From: Christopher Harwood Snider Subject: Re: MCI Gave me a Deal Organization: University of Virginia Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 15:39:18 GMT glen@cs.wisc.edu writes: > MCI called yesterday, and made me an offer I didn't want to refuse. > 50% off on all calls for six months. After that, 50% off on calls to > MCI customers (no list required) and 25% off (if I recall correctly) > to everyone else. 50% off is all well and good, but what is it off of? If that is their savings on $1/minute rates then you are getting taken to the cleaners. Percentages do not matter as much as the bottom line which is the rate you are paying. Find out what those are and then you can make a viable comparison. I have flat rates around 14 cents/minute on my home line with a carrier. I have seen better rates from resellers, but I just can not trust them with my phone service. Anyone in the US can get these rates and businesses will often times get better, if not much better, rates. Also, do not get a calling card if it has a surcharge or any hidden fees such as higher first minute billing. Ask for nothing less than straight six second billing. You should only be paying for what you use, right? I hope this helps. :-) Regards, Christopher H. Snider Telecommunications Consulting American Access chs2c@virginia.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Feb 95 11:24:25 CST From: richardm@cd.com (Richard Masoner) Subject: Re: MCI Bureaucratic Blunder Organization: Central Data Corp., Champaign, IL > was made! October was the last month we received a billing from MCI > on the U.S. West bill, and it was only for part of the month. So, > suspicions are that an error made by U.S. West in finally correcting > their bill to us created the problem with MCI, and started the This is interesting. I too am an MCI subscriber, and last October the MCI portion of my bill no longer appeared on my GTE-North phone bill. I did get the MCI bill separately, directly from MCI. A phone call inquiring about why this was quickly rectified the situation. Richard [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Rectify it for us please. Why are they now billing you separately. PAT] ------------------------------ From: helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman) Subject: Re: Fraudulent Call Forwarding Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 08:17:08 -0800 Organization: The Aerospace Corporation In article Patrick Townsend wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This same report appeared in alt.dcom.telecom > today submitted to that newsgroup by Jack Decker who concluded by saying ........deleted........... > What goes around comes around: Does anyone remember the old anecdote about ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^....Hah! > the original development of automatic switching involving Alvin Stroger? > Mr. Stroger was an undertaker a hundred years ago; he believed that the > operators on the manual exchange serving his community had been bribed to > divert calls from the public seeking funeral/burial services to his compe- > tition. So the story goes, he developed the switch which came to bear his > name as a way to be certain that manual operators at telephone exchanges > could not wilfully give away his business to his competitors. PAT] PAT, tell us that you actually intended that hysterical pun! (Then again, many readers are too young to get it ...) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yeah, I had the same thing in mind. I do stand corrected though on the inventor's name: It is spelled 'Strowger' with a /w/ in the middle. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #81 *****************************