TELECOM Digest Thu, 9 Feb 95 10:56:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 88 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AT&T 500 Service and the Hospitality Industry (Darryl Kipps) Re: AT&T 500 Service (Marc A. Randolph) Re: Motorola Flip Phone and Low Battery (Patrick Wolfe) Re: Atlanta Toll-Free Calling Zone Growing? (Ed Goldgehn) Re: Directory Assistance Vendor Wanted (Ed Goldgehn) Re: The Philosophy of CallerID (Benjamin P. Carter) Re: North Pacific Cable Cut? (Floyd Davidson) Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Finn Stafsnes) Re: When Will PBXs Go Away? (chazworth@aol.com) Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: CCITT Class A (Lars Poulsen) Cash For Telecom Experts Who Want to be Published (David Bezar) Information Sought on RF Data-Comm Chips (1/4 Mile Range) (Rob Mitchell) 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: 09 Feb 95 03:25:57 EST From: Darryl Kipps <72623.456@compuserve.com> Subject: AT&T 500 Service and the Hospitality Industry As MIS director for a small chain of hotels, I am concerned about the increasing number of comments I'm seeing here regarding the inability to access 500 numbers from most PBX's. I take great pride in offering our guests the luxury of trouble-free communications away from home. I don't want to block these calls, but I'd like to make sure I have all the facts straight regarding who pays for the calls. If I understand correctly, I assume that if I were to call our Esteemed Moderator's 1-500-number at 4am I'd be greeted with a grumble and a click. :) From there I assume that a charge would appear on my telco bill by AT&T for a one minute call from VA to Chicago. At what rate am I being charged? (i.e. Basic Rate, Calling Card, Flat, etc. ?) Do I lose the benefit of any calling plans I subscribe to? Having been burned to some extent by each new calling scheme that's come down the pike in the last ten years, I'm a bit cautious, as I'm sure you understand, but I deplore the thought of a business traveller calling my (clueless) desk staff complaining that their 500 number can't be completed and the clerk responding with such infinite wisdom as "Huh?". (Although from what I've seen, some of AT&T's staff could fill those shoes!) Basically, I want to be able to provide the service without being taken to the cleaners. I presently block NO numbers going out of my PBX's. My CO provides blocking for 900 numbers and those nasty 800 pay-per-call deceptions. I then bill all remaining 1+ calls at a fixed markup from our actual fixed rate. But, as I command a .0935 flat rate from our carrier, (who is NOT AT&T) I'm afraid that I'll book a loss on 1-500 calls if I'm billed at calling card rates by AT&T! On a self-preservation note, I'd like to make it clear to anyone planning a pity party for me due to the widespread raping and pilfirage undertaken by most hotels with regard to telephone charges, I absolutely do not and will not gouge my guests to use my telephones. It has become quite commonplace in this industry to take whatever steps are necessary to recoup lost revenue due to increased competition and lower occupancy rates by increasing tele- phone charges. Every chain franchisor/operator out there has a national account with one LD carrier or another and NONE are paying more than .105/ minute for direct dialed, interstate calls. Flat rate, any time, anywhere. Most even have up to 50% off international calls. Yet, if you make a 1+ call from any one of thier rooms, you can expect to pay between $1 and $3 _per minute_ (!) for that call. So, as a result, most travellers are now using calling cards exclusively when on the road. Well, that really pissed 'em off. In retaliation, the AOS was born. These cut-throat upstarts intercept calling card traffic flowing out of hotels, lock 'em up in a Mitel SMT-1 Dialer box and shoot 'em through someone's basement in Idaho, re-route through who-knows where, mark up the charges to an astronomical rate, tack on some profit to kick back to the hotel, pause a few months for effect, then send billing data to the poor victim's telco. Three months after a trip, John Q. Customer has a $6 charge on his bill for a one minute call placed from a number he doesn't recognize, but barely remembers visiting the city. A call to the telco provides the number of the offending carrier. Another call puts you in direct conversation with a real live Auto Attendant with a menu longer than Denny's. If (and I stress IF) you reach a human (or at least their interpetation of such) you can expect all the warmth and understanding of an iceberg. Oh, dear, I'm ranting. Sorry. But you get my point. After all, I guess someone has to pay for those fresh lox and bagels on the complimentary (ha) continental breakfast spread. My point is that I don't condone these practices. The phones in my rooms are but another amenity I provide for my guests comfort just the same as clean sheets and hot water. Next thing you know they'll be putting water meters on each room ... (Stop him before he rants again!) At any rate, I'd appreciate billing procedures and rates for 1- 500 service. I'm assuming that 0-500 numbers are always billed to either the callee or a calling card. Thanks for listening. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Don't make too many assumptions. As 'they' say, when you assume something, it makes an ass out of 'u' and 'me'. One option under the 0-500 menu is 'to charge this call to the number you are calling from, press 1'. Now I think you can probably work around that with billed number screening; that is, the feature offered by most local telcos which forbids collect and third number billing. I am not sure. I think if you have billed number screening, then billing option 1 under 0-500 is not given; or it may be given but when the caller chooses it a response comes back that 'charges cannot be billed to this phone'. You will want to clarify this with your local telco. It is true in most cases that 0-500 works like any other zero plus call; you need to then use a calling card or call 'collect' (which in this case is done with a PIN). There is no option for third number billing. But make sure your telco can block that 'bill the call to the number you are calling from' option. This is not something to bother AT&T with; your local telco does all the billing. I know when using payphones, the option 'bill to the phone you are using' is not even given, so obviously they can tell the difference. On calls dialed 1-500 and billed direct (or dialed 0-500 if the guest slips it to you by pressing '1' in response to 'bill this call to the number you are calling from') you will be billed by AT&T at the rate of 25 cents per minute during peak and 15 cents per minute at night and on weekends/holidays. Peak is 8am to 5pm your time, Monday through Friday. You *will* be billed by AT&T on your local telco bill (in most places) and you will *not* be billed by whoever is your established carrier, nor at that carrier's rates. You will receive none of the benefits your carrier gives for discounts, etc. If you happen to be an AT&T customer, then the charges for 1-500 calls are counted toward any discounts for volume usage given by AT&T. It does not matter where in the USA you are, the rate is 25/15 cents per minute, even if you are next door. That much should be easy enough to program for. The catch is, if calls are being forwarded outside the USA, *then international rates apply*, billed to *whoever places the call*. In other words, you can't absolutely count on the 25/15 rate. Most always it will be, of course, and if the owner has his 500 number forwarded internationally then the caller will get a warning from AT&T 'this call is going to an international point and will be billed at international rates', but can you count on your guest in the hotel (or the user on your PBX or whatever) to tell you about this? You will get the charges for the international call. You will eat the charges for the international call unless you have recourse to the person who placed the call. So be careful of 1-500. You will almost always see the 25/15 per minute rate *but not always*. I would say since there is no easy way to discern whether a 500 call is going to terminate domestically or internationally, other than the verbal warning given to the caller by AT&T as the call is being set up, you'd be wise to set your rates accordingly. Mark up that 25/15 to something you are comfortable with for profit, assume (there we go again!) that for the immediate future 500 is mostly going to terminate in this country (at least until it gets very popular, if it ever does) and accept your occassional (hopefully very rare) losses on 500's which have been forwarded to the South Pole or wherever. There are intra-state exceptions to the 25/15 pricing; most states have gone along with it; check to see if your state has slightly different rates for in-state calls. Note to PBX admins: if you require your users to give a PIN as part of their long distance call, or you can identify the user based on the extension from which the call was placed, you have no problems. Just pass along the charges accordingly; mostly 25/15, occassionally something else. Now on 0-500 as noted above, if you have 'bill to this number' as an option removed, then the choices are bill to the caller's own credit card (not your problem) or call collect using a PIN (again, not your problem where the call terminates.) And yes Mr. Kipps, hotels have lately had the attitude that every single item in the house must be a profit center. I am surprised they don't charge guests to ride the elevator ... there is a few square feet of floor space not turning a profit! Many years ago when my friend Mrs. Brown was the resident manager of a hotel in Chicago, she explained about phone service. She said the switchboard never makes a profit; " ...in fact we lose a little on it, but you have to provide it ..." It was understood that it was a courtesy for guests. You made your money renting rooms, not selling phone service. She told me a funny story: she said she had an agreement with 'Kenwood Bell' (she was on the Chicago-Kenwood CO of Illinois Bell) which was that she did not sell phone service and they do not have rooms for rent ... . Hey, if business is that bad, start renting rooms by the hour ... oh, I guess you don't want that kind of a 'house' either. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mrand@eesun2.tamu.edu (Marc A Randolph) Subject: Re: AT&T 500 Service Date: 9 Feb 1995 07:14:15 GMT Organization: Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Texas A&M University > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, you might check again. Very possibly > [...] > 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] So now that you've been though it Pat, do you mind telling us the possible options/features of 500 service? It sounds like you can set up a hunt group, which I was not aware of. Will it do a hunt on no answer? And if you don't mind, how much is it (i.e. for different levels of options)? Marc Randolph mrand@tamu.edu -or- mar6019@tamu.edu PGP keyID: 4C95994D ...!{uunet,gatech}!tamu.edu!mrand [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You dial 0-500-your number and when requested, enter your master pin. You then get a menu which allows you to modify your 'reach list', turn on/off override (of your reach list), place a call to your home or override number, check voicemail, and do a few other things. In the reach list, you can give up to three numbers to try and reach you at. When someone calls your 500 number, it starts at the top of the list, working its way down until some one of the phones on the list is answered or it reaches the bottom of the list. For instance, your reach list can have your home number (abbreviated H# if desired when you enter it), your cellular number (abbreviated C# if desired) and perhaps your work number or voicemail. It starts at the top of the reach list and rings that phone the number of times you designate (default is four rings, but you can set it as desired). If no answer or busy, a voice comes on the line and says, "please hold, we will try to reach your party at another number." It then tries the second number on the list, and if necessary this repeats and the third number is attempted. You can have as many 500 calls simultaenously as you have terminating facilities. In other words if you have two lines at home set up in hunt, then you can have two 500 calls. If both those lines are busy a third 500 call would look on the reach list for the next place to try. I don't think there is any limit to the number of 500 calls that can be aimed at you at any one time other than whatever number of calls you (and the various places on your reach list) can handle at one time. You might have your 500 number point to your PBX (as the first number on your reach list) during the day. At night when your PBX does not answer, calls would go to the second number on your reach list, which is your office in another state which is open all night, etc. If your PBX can handle 20 incoming calls, then you can have 20 incoming 500 calls if desired. Maybe the third number on your reach list is someone who takes calls on weekends. By calling in with your master pin, you modify the reach list as desired anytime. If you want only one number on your reach list which you call in and change throughout the day as you travel around, that's okay also. Just scratch the other two. You can have up to three to be attempted if desired. If you are going to be at one place on a temporary basis and don't want to change your reach list, then a provision is made called 'override the reach list'. You enter a single number to *always* be used until you turn off this feature and tell it to go back to using the reach list again. So it truly can be a national number just like 800, but with more flexibility because you can require the caller to pay for it unless he has a pin, and you are not tied down to any one location as you are with many old-fashioned 800 numbers, although companies like 'My Line' and Arch Telecom have eliminated that problem. You can use your 500 number to make outcalls also and not have to bother with a calling card or calling collect. At the present time, you can only call your home number (H#) or your override number, but that will be changed later this year so you can call anywhere. Now with 'My Line' and Arch Telecom, you can presently use your 800 number for outcalls to anywhere. AT&T says 500 will eventually have that also. If desired, you can have what is known as 'Final Stop' with 500. This has to be either AT&T provided voicemail or voicemail from the vendor of your choosing. If all the numbers on your reach list are busy or do not answer, then calls go automatically to 'Final Stop'. If you wish, you can override the reach list and send calls to 'Final Stop' directly. If desired, call screening is also available. You can toggle options which allow only calls made with pin numbers to reach you, sending all other calls to Final Stop (voicemail). There is an option where calls deemed 'urgent' can get through the call screening while all other calls go to voicemail. You get recorded help at any time by pressing *H, and *0 will transfer you to the business office at any time for further assistance. Prices for the different options vary, and I do not have them all here. Right now everything is one dollar per month through April. For more information call them at 1-800-982-8480. PAT] ------------------------------ From: pwolfe@mcs.com (Patrick Wolfe) Subject: Re: Motorola Flip Phone and Low Battery Date: 8 Feb 1995 17:01:52 GMT Organization: MCSNet Services Erik P. Larson (larsone2@clunix.cl.msu.edu) wrote: > Motorola ... flip phone ... does anyone know how to disable the low > battery warning beep? It's really annoying ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I'll second you on that (is anyone from Motorola listening?). My phone has tons of controllable options, but not how many times or loud to make that damned beep. One thing that's interesting is that when I'm using the phone, it only beeps about four or five times (maybe one to two minutes) before the battery drains and the phone shuts off. When I'm not using the phone, it'll beep about once every minute for at least 15 minutes. My instructions for my xt-pak ni-cad batteries say to maintain long lifetime, I should discharge them fully before recharging (all the time, not just the first five times), so I've found I must stuff the úÿ phone under the couch cushions overnight so it won't wake me up. Maybe this is an opportunity for a third party product - a cell phone silencer (sound proof box), or a battery drainer (something that just puts a load on the battery until it drains completely). Patrick Wolfe (pwolfe@mcs.net) ------------------------------ From: edg@ocn.com (Ed Goldgehn) Subject: Re: Atlanta Toll-Free Calling Zone Growing? Date: 8 Feb 1995 18:57:03 GMT Organization: The INTERNET Connection, LLC In article , pbeker@netcom.com says... > I heard a very brief report on one of the local radio stations that > Southern Bell was planning to increase the size of the "local Atlanta > calling zone by 50%" by "adding 34 new exchanges" to it ... Thanks to the PUC, we got to vote on this about a year ago. The ballots were included in our telephone bills and was going to result in an increase on all residential and business telephone line costs. It passed. Now they are implementing the expansion of the calling area as well as splitting up 404 into two area codes in the same calling area (yes, this means you may need to dial another area code to get across the street). I don't remember what the new area code will be. Ed Goldgehn E-Mail: edg@ocn.com Sr. Vice President Voice: (404) 919-1561 Open Communication Networks, Inc. Fax: (404) 919-1568 ------------------------------ From: edg@ocn.com (Ed Goldgehn) Subject: Re: Directory Assistance Vendor Wanted Date: 8 Feb 1995 19:10:08 GMT Organization: The INTERNET Connection, LLC In article , sbauer@tyrell.net says: > I am looking for a vendor who can provide me with up to date Directory > Assistance data for the United States that can reside on a LAN and be > accessed by any user. I'm not sure if a CD-ROM that is updated > frequently is the way to go or an on line connection with a per > request charge. > We have about $3,000 per month in Directory Assistance charges. Contact DirectoryNet, Inc. in Atlanta about this. They have on-line connections to most telephone companies in the country and offer the type of service you are looking for. Their telephone number is (404) 512-5090. Ed Goldgehn E-Mail: edg@ocn.com Sr. Vice President Voice: (404) 919-1561 Open Communication Networks, Inc. Fax: (404) 919-1568 For more information about ISDN in general and our TURNKEY ISDN Solutions, send e-mail to isdn@ocn.com (There are humans at the end of this address). ------------------------------ From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter) Subject: Re: The Philosophy of CallerID Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 23:26:25 GMT malcolm@interval.com (Malcolm Slaney) writes: > This article should be required reading for anybody who wants to enter > into the debate. > Caller ID and the Meaning of Privacy > Laurie Thomas Lee (Univ of Nebraska-Lincoln) Robert LaRose (Michigan > State) > The Information Society, Volume 1, pp 247-265, 1994. So anyone unable or unwilling to find this publication in a library is by definition too ignorant to discuss issues relating to caller ID? Can the material be accessed electronically? If not, then I submit that it should *NOT* be required reading. Ben Carter internet address: bpc@netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Hey, chill out, Ben. 'Should be required reading' is a favorite phrase of book reviewers everywhere. It does not mean the Congress is going to pass a law sending you to prison if you don't read the book and still choose to postulate on the subject matter. Look at me. What do I know about anything, yet I talk all the time. PAT] ------------------------------ From: floyd@sanford.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) Subject: Re: North Pacific Cable Cut? Date: 9 Feb 1995 06:51:10 GMT In article palm@tokyo.rockwell.com (Stephen Palm) writes: > We have 56kbps digital leased line between Tokyo and California that > used the North Pacific Cable (NPC). Apparently NPC was cut on 2 Feb > 1:00 AM JST (1 Feb 8:00 AM PST) and we are now on satellite backup. > Does anybody have any more information? Does anyone know when they > are planning to fix NPC? There appears to be a problem between the first and second repeaters, which would put it approximately 60 Km off the coast of Oregon. In addition to Asian traffic, the NPC has a spur to Alaska, and all traffic is currently using satellite re-route. I'll have a chance to check later tonight on the current status and if there is anything actually useful to anyone I'll try to post it in the morning. Considering the three previous occasions when the NPC has been out of service, expect 10-12 days for repair. Floyd floyd@ims.alaska.edu A guest on the Institute of Marine Science computer Salcha, Alaska system at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks. ------------------------------ From: Finn.Stafsnes@nta.no (Finn Stafsnes) Subject: Re: Ten Digit Dialing Organization: Norwegian Telecom Research Date: Thu, 9 Feb 95 11:11:35 GMT In article , etxlndh@eua.ericsson.se (Robert Lindh) writes: > I think Norway switched to seven-digit telephone numbers for all > calls, including "local" calls, approximately one year ago. Make it eight-digits. ... and in Denmark, a similar change was made some (five?) years ago. >> The reason given was something like "to prepare for new functions in >> the future". The main reason, as I have got it, was that the old numbering plan was beginning to run out of numbers for some areas. Finn Stafsnes ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 08:49:05 -0500 From: Chazworth@aol.com Subject: Re: When Will PBXs Go Away? In article , writes: > What is the current thinking on when a PC (powerPC, whatever) replace > the PBX? i.e. when can I run my T1 from the telco with my voice trunks > on it into one card on a PC and have it route voice over the LAN to > other desktop computers that double as phones? It will probably be a > time curve: first available for small offices (ten users) on an ethernet, > then a while later available for 200 lines on a faster LAN, etc. What > says the net? My Mitel sx200 lite has a 68000 for a processor: it's a > MacPlus! Surely the cpu horsepower is available to replace lots of > dedicated TTL and switching hardware. I was just at a briefing from > Apple and they're working with the PBX makers for a Geoport Mac to be > a voice terminal behind a "big maker" PBX. But who are the startups > that are out to kill the PBX makers? The "startups out to kill" are the PBX makers themselves. NEC, Toshiba make computers now. Instead of the PBX going away, see it as yet another server on the LAN. I work with NEC systems involving about 50 trunks by 100 to 200 lines, (a small switch) It takes a lot of power to drive this thing, making analog sets ring, driving digital sets etc. I am also sure that the bandwidth on a LAN will ever increase to be able to handle the increased voice traffic, just as the PC will become more stable -- not needing the three fingered salute from time to time. The reported weakness of the PBX, the closed system approach also was a a foundation of its strength, amazing durability. Today the PBX is augmented by the computer (integrated messaging, authorization code database, ACD) and that forms a network of distributed -- not dedicated, processing. That is the powerhouse for communication networks, not the warm-fuzzy, shrinkwrapped software do everything in-a-box world of Harry Newton. ------------------------------ From: mds@access.digex.net (Michael D. Sullivan) Subject: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs Date: 9 Feb 1995 00:32:32 -0500 Organization: Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer & Quinn (Washington, DC, USA) edg@ocn.com (Ed Goldgehn) writes: > In article , pturner@netcom.com says: >>> BTW, the method of charges is entirely different for LD service in the >>> cellular industry. With cellular, it is not unusual for local cellular >>> carriers (RBOC's or otherwise) to provide FREE or flat rate termination >>> charges to LD carriers. >> Why not, if they extend the T1s to your MTSO? It's that many less >> erlangs going out on the other (paid) trunks. I assume the B carriers >> probally must provide this for free or are limited to some max rate by >> Da Judge (that's Greene, not Ito :-)) No, Judge Greene doesn't have any jurisdiction over what the RBOCs charge for providing access. He does require them to provide equal access, however (see below). > Actually, it was a matter of marketing -- or necessity depending on > your point of view. The cellular industry needed to attract long > distance carriers to make connections to their networks in order to > sell their services. It didn't do much good to provide local > cellphone service without LD capability. But, the LD carriers weren't > going to make those connections on the same basis that they make their > existing LD access (by the connection and by time). So, since the > cellular industry needs the LD capability to sell its local calling > service, the fee structure was virtually eliminated. > I don't know which cellular carrier was first to do this (I would take > a guess that it was McCaw, but don't quote me on that). But, from > what I've heard, this practice is now widespread. I'm not sure who was the first to do it, but the first cellular carrier to file a tariff providing free access was U S WEST NewVector Group. Judge Greene got in a snit that USWNVG didn't have an equal access tariff, so it filed one with the FCC specifying $0 charge. The FCC staff wanted to reject it, but ultimately allowed it to go into effect. Michael D. Sullivan | INTERNET E-MAIL TO: mds@access.digex.net Bethesda, Md., USA | also avogadro@well.com, 74160.1134@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: lars@spectrum.RNS.COM (Lars Poulsen) Subject: Re: CCITT Class A Date: 8 Feb 1995 22:33:54 -0800 Organization: Rockwell International - CMC Network Products In article rgu332@email.sps.mot.com (Jesus Ruelas) writes: > I read about the committee CCITT that is formed by 5 class groups, > they are class A, class B, ..., class E; and know that only the group > class A has the voting right while proposing a Standard specification. > Does anybody know why only this group has this kind of privileges?. The CCITT is a division of the ITU (International Telecommunications Union); it has recently been renamed ITU-TS (Technical Standards division). The ITU is a United Nations agency. That means only governments get to vote. Lars Poulsen Internet E-mail: lars@RNS.COM Rockwell Network Systems Phone: +1-805-562-3158 7402 Hollister Avenue Telefax: +1-805-968-8256 Santa Barbara, CA 93105 Internets: designed and built while you wait ------------------------------ From: dbezar@PrimeNet.Com (David Bezar) Subject: Cash For Telecom Experts Who Want to be Published Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 16:21:47 MST Organization: Primenet $$$$ Money $$$$ to be made and the bragging rights to being a published author. I am currently writting a book on Computer Telephony. There are dozens of chapters on different topics pertaining to the Telecommunications industry. I am looking for people who are interested in writting approximately a 20 pages including some diagrams on each of the following subjects: Wireless Communications Fax processing, Fax on demand, Fax broadcasting ISDN Communications International Communications Asynchronous Transfer Mode The Cable/Telecommunications Industry Video Conferencing / Distance Learning Microsoft's TAPI, Novell's TSAPI Telephony and the Internet If you are interested in obtaining more information about becoming a published author with one of the largest publishers in the world, and you are knowledgeable about one or more of these topics, write me back at: dbezar@primenet.com Please tell me which topic(s) you may be interested in / qualified for, along with a little information about yourself, and if possible, but not necessary a voice telephone number and a good time to reach you. If you are selected there is some money $$$$ to be made, but far more important is the fact that you could be published by a MAJOR publishing company. Details to be disclosed to those who respond. ------------------------------ From: robm@isgtec.com (Rob Mitchell) Subject: Information Sought on RF Data-Comm Chips/ (1/4 mile Range) Organization: ISG Technologies Inc. Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 20:05:58 -0500 This post's not as interesting as Dick Tracy, but ... ;) I am looking for product information about IC's which will allow me to transmit data using RF about a quarter mile or so. I'm looking for something with either an async, or possibly SDLC interface, to work with a micro-controller (TI 370 series). I'm also interested in board level products. Which companies participate in this field? Also, can anyone recommend any good, practical design guides covering this subject? What frequencies are 'best'. What bands are reserved? Types of antennae and driver circuits? Thanks in advance for the information! Rob Mitchell ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #88 *****************************