TELECOM Digest Wed, 8 Feb 95 09:34:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 84 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson 700 Problems = 500 Problems (Doug Reuben) Re: NYNEX PIN Security - Extra Airtime? (Ken Weaverling) MVIP Interface? (K.S. Lee) Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Robert Lindh) QUALCOMM Gone Wrong? (Simon J. Wallace) Re: Telstra (Australia) Information Wanted (Sam Spens Clason) Motorola Fones (Antonio Veloso) Re: Phone Number Wanted For Genesys Labs (Joe Sulmar) Dial-N-Save (Jeff Hersh) Re: Cheap Way to Get an 800 Number? (sm@infinet.com) Re: 28.8k bps Modem (Marc A. Randolph) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dreuben@interpage.net (Doug Reuben) Subject: 700 Problems = 500 problems Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 05:24:28 EST Hoping that AT&T learned from its mistakes with the 700 service, I anxiously awaited the availability of their 500 service. Although there are a few impressive features on the system, overall, many people can NOT reach me on it and/or find it awkward. Here are some observations: 1. WHY does it have to say "AT&T" when someone calls 1-500-442-4CID? I don't need people calling me to hear free advertisements for AT&T. I realize that people may wonder why there are AT&T 500 charges on their bills when they may use MCI or Sprint, but having the service say "AT&T" for every call is annoying. Put the info on the bill if needed. 2. Configuration is the same as the 700, ie, I dial 0-500-442-4CID, and enter my PIN. The menu is exactly the same for the "middle" tier service, and is slightly more complicated for the higher-end ("Navigator"?) service. BUT - dialing 0-500 is also the problem. From a cellphone, you need pay for this. I don't want to have to pay each time I want to re- forward my calls to my cellphone, or from one phone to the other. There is really no technical reason why AT&T has to return supervision on 0+500 calls (or 0+ calls in general)...I mean, so if it doesn't work on the last remaining Step-By-Step exchange in Vermont or whatever, fine, but I think there are good deal more people using carphones than served by SXS exchanges where 0+ tone dialing requires a supervision return. The service is useless to me if I need to re-forward it and have to PAY each time I do it. I have no problem paying for use, but to pay airtime to my cellco just to reforward calls is too much. I know you can schedule it to try a few numbers, but I'm not always at the same carphone, and I suspect there are a number of poorly connected cellphone companies where AT&T's system will not be able to tell if the line is busy or no one is there via any other method than a timeout. We intend to use 500-442-4CID for business purposes, (or we'd like to), but if it is too flaky and/or costly to use we just won't bother. 3. Caller ID isn't shown (no surprise there). 4. It doesn't work from Rochester, NY, and all these other telcos which couldn't bill the 700 number directly, either. It doesn't work from most people's PBXs, and it doesn't work from any sort of system which is not directly connected to the local telco, like an outdial from a voicemail box, etc. 5. Most cellular companies do not allow 1+500 billing (even those which AT&T owns), so you need to dial 0-500, resulting in an airtime charge to the caller even if no one answers or the line is busy. This was one of the biggest problems with ER700 -- no one wanted to call me from their carphones after about a month of using the service and seeing all these calls at 80 cents per minute to my 700 when I never even answered. There are other significant problems, but I'll save those for another post. What I do like about the service (and this is more of a result of how 500 numbers work than anything AT&T has done) is: 1. I can tell everyone to just dial 1-500-442-4CID. If it works from your home phone/business phone, great. If you are at a payphone, you can STILL dial 1-500-442-4CID, and it automatically dumps you into the 0+500 menu. This way, people don't have to know 0-500 or 1- 500, they just always dial 1-500. (It would be nice if payphones would let you pay for 1-500 with coins, at least for AT&T 1-500 calls.) There is no need for any access codes, alternate instructions, 10xxx codes, or anything. 1-500 does the trick! (Assuming it works at all, which, from many phones and businesses, it does not). The usual problems with having to use the silly 800 number to access the 500 number still apply to many cellular services, most businesses, etc. Most of my friends can't call me from work, so I wonder about how worthwhile the service is for personal use, let alone for business use. 2. I can forward my calls to my 500 number, which although not something which I would often do, is still a feature which the 700 lacked and which would have come in handy from time to time. 3. You can give your callers PINs if you want to pay for the call. This is also a welcome feature carried over from EasyReach 700. Unfortunately, it's also necessary - without giving out PINs to some of my callers, they would NEVER be able to reach me. They call from locations where they need to use the 800 access method and calling card, and do not have AT&T or local Bell calling cards. So because the 500 service is STILL difficult for many people to reach, *I* am forced to pay to allow them to reach me. I had hoped the 500 service would alleviate all this - apparently, it does not. Although a number of these features are an improvement, AT&T needs to do a LOT of work before their 500 service becomes useful enough for me to justify the $7 monthly "Navigator" charge, or even the $4 "middle service" monthly charge. Right now, it is a partially fixed 700 service, but does not go far enough to remedy the major deficiencies of ER700. If there are any other carriers out there who offer a similar service but without all the problems of AT&T's, I'd love to hear from you! BTW - Can International callers access the 500 service by dialing +1- 500 etc? I'd be interested in hearing about this as well. (I don't mean via AT&T's thoroughly overpriced USADirect service, rather, I mean as a direct dialed call to the US.) Doug Reuben * dreuben@interpage.net * (500) 442-4CID / (203) 499 - 5221 Interpage Network Services -- E-Mail/Telnet to Alpha or Numeric Pagers & Fax [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What an interesting article to find in the mail when I woke up today! Here is why: I was awakened twice during the night (Wednesday early morning) on calls from Europe where people were trying to reach my 500 number -- the only number I give out now. About 5:50 AM Chicago time the phone rang. Someone in London was calling to say someone *they* were dealing with was trying unsuccessfully to reach me and could I advise how to get through. I was too groggy to speak with them for more than a few seconds. Then about 8:00 AM the phone rang again, this time with *someone from AT&T* on the line. He was in New York, and said he was working 'with a customer calling internationally trying to reach me'. So what, I asked ... and this guy (an AT&T employee!) asks me, "What is a 500 number?". Sort of astounded, I asked if he was indeed an AT&T employee and he said he was, but that he had never heard of 500 numbers ... and he worked for the company! I told him it was called 'Personal Number Service'. He wanted to know how callers from international points 'were supposed to get through' and I told him damned if I knew anything about it, I am just an ignorant cust- omer. I suggested maybe they could try USA Direct and see if that worked. That should keep a few people at AT&T occupied and busy today. Then I realized one way to force everyone to call you via AT&T whether they want to use that company or not is by giving 500 as the only possible number to reach you on. Let them argue about it with their telcos, etc. This should prove to be a great help toward maintaining the privacy of your phone number when it is requested on credit applications, etc. No fraud is intended of course .. you *can* be reached via 500. All you have done is just made it a bit harder for folks calling from PBX's and via lame telcos, etc. Plus, its so new, it will still be a novelty for quite awhile ... so let's all give 1-500 as our number; our only number. Either use it or don't get through. Forget the 0-500 unless the person thinks of it on his own as a way to call using a credit card. I certainly do not intend to give out any of those PINS for collect calls to me with the exception of my very immediate friends, etc. I am having lots of fun with this already! PAT] ------------------------------ From: weave@hopi.dtcc.edu (Ken Weaverling) Subject: Re: NYNEX PIN Security - Extra Airtime? Date: 8 Feb 1995 03:15:06 -0500 Organization: Delaware Technical & Community College In article , Doug Reuben wrote: > This raises a question: Normally, for any call which is answered, > billing STARTS shortly after you press SEND, when the system > recognizes/validates your phone and processes your outward call. [...] > Now how does the PIN code fraud feature affect this? I've timed how > long it takes to get the "prompt" to enter your PIN code, and then to > enter the code while driving, and it is about ten seconds. Now do these > tenseconds count? I've wondered this myself. I'm with Bell Atlantic Mobile, which has the same system. One thing I've found out though, you don't have to wait for the tones before you press in your PIN, just make sure the tone sounds before you press SND. Regardless, I hate the entire PIN thing. I don't know why I assigned one to my number. In addition to the above concern, it messes up your last number redial. When I RCL my last number, it's the blasted PIN. It's also a hassle to punch it in whilst driving. Ken Weaverling Computer Services, Delaware Tech College weave@dtcc.edu (My opinions are mine alone, I don't speak for the college) ------------------------------ From: ksl@technet.sg (KS Lee) Subject: MVIP Interface? Date: 8 Feb 1995 08:33:35 GMT Organization: Technet, Singapore Hello, Can someone point me to ISDN card that have a proper implementation of MVIP interface? Please email you suggestion to me. Thanks, Lee, Kok Seng FAX: 65-743-1305 Tel: 65-741-7211 ext 505 Internet: ksl@technet.sg CS :70313,2555 ------------------------------ From: etxlndh@eua.ericsson.se (Robert Lindh) Subject: Re: Ten Digit Dialing Date: 8 Feb 1995 11:43:17 GMT Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden I think Norway switched to seven-digit telephone numbers for all calls, including "local" calls, approximately one year ago. The reason given was something like "to prepare for new functions in the future". ------------------------------ From: Simon J Wallace Subject: QUALCOMM Gone Wrong? Organization: Edinburgh University Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 11:58:17 GMT Hello there. I wonder if anybody can help me with the following questions. 1) What's the difference between Qualcomm's IS-95 and PN-3384 the new PCS derivative? 2) Where are GO communications based? I read this morning that they plan to bring GSM to North America. 3) GO claim to be introducing GSM as CDMA looks unlikely to roll out in the near future. What do other people think? Thanks for any comments. Simon Wallace Masters Student University of Edinburgh sjw@ee.ed.ac.uk ------------------------------ From: d92-sam@black29.nada.kth.se (Sam Spens Clason) Subject: Re: Telstra (Australia) Information Wanted Date: 8 Feb 1995 12:24:42 GMT In britos@scf.usc.edu writes: > Looking for information on this company. Stock Analysis. Assets. > Prognosis. History. etc ... The official story is available on http://www.tansu.com.au. BTW, I have collected some telecom related URLs. If someone has something to add to my list I'd be very glad for (mail) replies. Sam Sam Spens Clason ------------------------------ From: Antonio.Veloso@telecom.ptt.nl (Antonio Veloso) Subject: Motorola Fones Date: 8 Feb 1995 12:28:45 GMT Organization: PTT Telecom B.V. I am looking for MOTOROLA CELLULAR fones and accesories; who can give me some info? I want them for outside the USA. A.Veloso Holland ------------------------------ From: jsulmar@shore.net (Joe Sulmar) Subject: Re: Phone Number Wanted For Genesys Labs Date: 8 Feb 1995 13:41:03 GMT Organization: North Shore Access In article , pkendall@arnold.jfrank.COM (Paul Kendall) says: > Anybody have a phone number for Genesys Labs? I'm interested in their > product line, especially the T-server. Paul: Here's the contact info: Genesys Inc. 1111 Bayhill Drive Suite 180 San Bruno, CA 94066 voice: 415-588-5149 fax: 415-588-5527 I'd like to hear about your application, and your thoughts on the suitability of T-server. I am also presently considering working with this product. ------------------------------ From: Hersh Jeff Subject: Dial-N-Save Date: Wed, 08 Feb 95 09:38:00 PST Some time ago, someone asked if anyone has had any experience with the long distance carrier called Dial-N-Save. At the time, I had also received the promotional flier advertising rates 10% lower than AT&T. These rates were available by dialing the appropriate access code. I have used the code for several calls between NJ and Texas, making calls at times-of-day similar to calls I had placed with AT&T (my "normal" long distance carrier). I received my bill yesterday, and, true to its word, the Dial-N-Save reduced my long distance charges by a little more than 10%. The average call rate went from about $0.17 úÿ per minute to about $0.153 per minute. Rates for nite/weekend were a little lower. Other than waiting a couple of seconds longer for ringback, there was no discernible difference in quality. Jeff Hersh hershj@bah.com ------------------------------ From: sm@news.infinet.com (SM Communications And Marketing) Subject: Re: Cheap Way to Get an 800 Number? Date: 7 Feb 1995 19:34:03 -0500 Organization: InfiNet In article , Paul Robinson wrote: >> Some friends and I are starting a new small business. We would like to >> have an 800 number. How do I get one? > You call a long distance carrier's 800 number and tell them you want > one. Within a couple of business days they will turn on the number. >> Other than ATT/MCI/Sprint, are there other people who can provide an >> 800 number cheaply? > Don't know how much you mean by 'cheaply'. My 800 number from AT&T > costs me $8 a month plus usage, which is typically around 20-25c a > minute depending on how far the person is from Maryland. As I > typically have a low calling volume, the costs usually run only $12 a > month or so. Cheaply probably means lower rates than the usual big three rates. For example, Hospitality Services Group has a personal 800 program whereby a person can get a free (and true) 800 number with no montly fees, no setup fees, no minimums, billed in six second increments and only 18 cents per minute, all the time. There are also other 800 services one can get at much lower rates if they volume warrants it.(usually over $50 per month.) And the rate can be as low as 13.5 cents per minute flat rate, billed in six second increments. And if you have a vanity number you can transfer and keep the same number and pay lower fees. Metin sm@infinet.com http://www.infinet.com/~sm ------------------------------ From: mrand@eesun2.tamu.edu (Marc A Randolph) Subject: Re: 28.8k bps Modem Date: 8 Feb 1995 02:09:29 GMT Organization: Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Texas A&M University In article , Paul Robinson wrote: >> 1. Is the bps across the twisted pair wire actually running at 28.8 or >> 14.4 when 28.8 is invoked? Or is it just data compression? > The data is not sent at 28,800 bits per second, however. Typically > the modem will divide up the telephone line into six or more channels, > and run each channel at 2400 to 4800 bits per second. By multiplexing > six channels at 2400 baud, you get 14,400 baud, etc. Sorry, this is not correct. The data IS sent at 28,800 bits per second. The line is not divided into channels either; a phone line can only handle something in the range of 2900 baud (+/- 500 baud or so). Baud means symbols per second, not necessarily characters per second. Here is part of a message from U.S. Robotics that explains it ... [if someone could send me the whole article I would appreciate it, I deleted everything except this extraction - mrand@tamu.edu] From: SUPPORT@usr.com (Robert Chechi) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems Subject: V.34 in a Nutshell Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 12:23:34 Organization: U.S. Robotics, Inc. V.34: The next-generation modem by Dale Walsh, U.S. Robotics vice president, advanced development [... lots of background deleted...] A V.22 bis, or 2,400 bit/sec, modem sends four bits per symbol and 600 symbols per second to achieve its speed of 2,400 bit/sec. The V32 modem sends four bits per symbol and 2,400 symbols per second to reach its speed of 9,600 bit/sec. V.32 bis sends six bits per symbol and 2,400 symbols per second to achieve 14.4K bit/sec. But V.34 will send up to nine bits per symbol, and 3,200 symbols per second, to achieve 28,800 bit/sec, twice as fast as V.32 bis. [... lots of detailed v.34 info deleted... ] ----------------- Marc Randolph mrand@tamu.edu -or- mar6019@tamu.edu PGP keyID: 4C95994D ...!{uunet,gatech}!tamu.edu!mrand ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #84 *****************************