TELECOM Digest Tue, 14 Dec 93 00:43:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 817 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson NYNEX/BAMS Codes, More (Douglas Scott Reuben) Bravo, Bravo +, etc. Pager Options and Programming? (Mike Gordon) Radio Shack 900 Mhz Cordless Phone (Greg Abbott) Big Switch Interfaces? (Christopher Nielsen) Acoustic Coupler For PCMCIA Modem Wanted (Phydeaux) Problems With 911 (Ed Mitchell) Some Surveyers Want Exemption From Autodialer Tariffs (David Leibold) Mind Games: A New Love Story (Dror Lubin via Mark Brader) Layoffs at NYNEX? (Reuters via Sid Shniad) Re: Union Losing Telco Jobs (David Appell) Re: Union Losing Telco Jobs (Eric Florack) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13-DEC-1993 14:50:37.92 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: NYNEX/BAMS Codes, More I recently gave in and got service with NYNEX/NY. I've been holding out because each time that I've had opportunity to call their customer service in the past, they have responded so incompetantly that I figured that their system/service could not be much better. However, since the summer, NYNNEX/NY finally added Follow Me Roaming (four years after every other major city got it), and more significantly, Mobilreach, NYNEX Mobile's automatic call delivery network which runs from Maine to Virginia. This includes SIDs: 00022 (NYC Metro), 00484 (Star Cell/southern Maine), 00028 (Boston Metro/RI), 00088 (CT), 00404 (Orange County, NY), 00486 (Poughkeepsie Area), 00078 (Albany), 00??? (forgot the SID for Pittsfield, MA), 00008 (Southern Jersey, Eastern PA, Delaware), 00018 (Baltimore and DC). I think there may be more past Albany, in other NYNEX properties, I'm not sure. (Note that SID 01516, near Kingston, NY, halfway between Poughkeepsie and Albany is NOT on the system, nor do they have FMR. It's some hick system which is only operated by NYNEX, and is an annoying hole in their NY <-> Albany coverage.) I think that NYNEX recently purchased the southern VT and NH properties from US Cellular, so maybe those will be added to the Mobilreach network as well. With such an extensive system, and with no daily surcharge for incoming calls, I decided it was time to try to them. (The "A" side still does not have a similar auto call delivery network which is as extensive, lacking any connectivity between New England or NY and DC/Baltimore, and nothing past Boston, so you lose Maine as well. There is a link between DC/Baltimore and Philly/DE on the A side, but it doesn't go as far northward or westward as does the B side. Vanguard and SWBell on the "A" side are supposed to get on the NACN "soon", but that still means that immediately north of NY (north of I-84) there is no means for auto-call delivery on the "A" side for the forseeable future.) Anyhow, the system works quite well -- I am autonomously registered as I enter a new system, and calls are routed there automatically. The "please hold on" message is annoying -- I'd prefer that the phone just rang. The system needs to place the call over an IXC, so the NYC system has to grab a line and dial out to the visited system, which takes time, and hence the "hold on" message. (Note that but for the DOJ's requirements, this would probably be unecessary :( ). In most of the systems, my call-forwarding features work. I can activate *71/2 and *73 to clear in all of BAMS, all of NYNEX (NY, MA, and RI), and Star Cell of Maine. They will not work in CT, simply because SNET refuses to allow them for some reason. I'll be calling them about that on Monday, and would encourage others who roam to CT to call SNET at 800-922-5469 and bypass the front-end customer service(?) automatons and directly ask to speak to the VP of Network Operations or something to find out why they don't allow call forwarding features to be activated/deactivated in CT, when all the other systems with the same AT&T switches allow it -- it's NOT a technical reason. (BTW, SNET auto-call delivery also goes to Maine, and your forwarding features from SNET will work all over New England, but not NY. SNET customers who roam in NYNEX/NY State properties may also want to inquire as to why SNET has chosen not to allow them to use their forwarding features from NY, whereas in Mass and Maine it is apparently OK.) One neat feature about forwarding on an AT&T Autoplex is that it is similar to forwarding on a landline -- if you receive a call while you have immediate forwarding (*72) set on, your cellular phone will ring once to let you know that a call was forwarded. This will work in NYNEX/NY (home system), and throughout BAMS as well. It won't work in NYNEX/Boston or Star Cell/Maine. Also, since calls are not being delivered to you in a visited market when you have forwarding on, it rings once IMMEDIATELY, which goes to show you how fast call delivery CAN be if it were not for these IXCs (MCI et. al.) screaming to the DOJ about "all that lost revenue from inter-lata, non-waiver cellular traffic". Call-Waiting also has a very nice implementation on the Autpoplex - if you are on a call, and a second comes in, you get the standard two call-waiting beeps, and then about 20 seconds later, a third one. The calling party hears a speacial ring (a ring with a beep attached to the end) to let him or her know that the cellular customer is on a call. If the calling party hangs up before the cellular customer answers, the cellular customer gets a stutter dial tone to indicate that the caller has terminated the call. Call-waiting for NYNEX/NYC customers works in all of BAMS, I think all of the NY properties, but not in SNET or the rest of New England. (Its seems as if NY and BAMS are in one "regime" and New England is in another -- is this in any way correct?) Voice-mail works nicely too -- if you are in your home system and have received a message while you were away from the phone, when you place or receive a call, you will hear an initial stutter dial tone to idicate that a message has been deposited in voicemail. This won't work when you roam in SNET or the rest of New England; it may work in BAMS and other NYNEX sites, but I haven't tried yet. Since the DOJ prohibits messages from going back to voicemail from a visited market unless it goes through an IXC (which most switches can't seem to handle, I dunno why), if you are roaming and get a call, and don't answer it, it will NOT go to voicemail. (The "A" side is similar). I'm not sure how advanced IS-41 Rev (whatever revision will handle this) is, but it's not here yet, and the US cellular industry is wasting a good deal of time and effort to deal with a problem which wouldn't even exist were it not for, in my mind, unecessarily onerous DOJ requirements for cellular voice (+ messaging?) inter-lata trafficking. (Hey, anyone have the address for Al Gore's Efficiency in Government or Competitiveness Committee or whatever it is called? ;) ) In any event, if you need to force your calls back to voicemail (or designated No Answer Transfer location) while you are roaming, hit *780. This turns call delivery of and forces calls to stay in your home system. Hitting *78 will turn call delivery on an have calls come to the visited market. (Similar to the *35/*350 codes on the "A" side NACN, or the *28/*29 codes for some Motorolas or ex-Motorola systems like GTE/SF.) I noticed that these codes were not working from any BAMS properties, although BAMS does indeed uses these for roamers from other PA B systems. (They use *18/*19 -- the FMR codes -- for auto call delivery for their customers -- foolishly I think. Its too confusing to know if you are using FMR or auto call delivery, although GTE FMR may be pushing for this. Don't be fooled, FMR is NO substitute to auto call delivery!). I called NYNEX/NY, and their inept customer service first had no idea what *78 was, and then told me it didn't work outside of NYC (????!!?!), and then one totally self-assured rep told me "It won't work south of NYC due to DOJ regulations" (really?! Which ones?!), and finally I called the corporate headquarters (914-365-7200) and got them to check it out for me. Seems it IS supposed to work, but BAMS never put *78/*780 in their translation table for NYNEX roamers! It is supposed to be set up in Philly (00008) this weekend, and DC/Baltimore (00018) early next week. What I want to know if why after six + months of auto call delivery and four + months of having the *78 feature that NO ONE at NYNEX even noticed this?! Don't they actually send people -- even just ONCE -- to the markets where these services are offered to try things out to see if they work? What sort of quality assurance do they have, anyhow? In general, a very nice network (once the *78/*780 codes are set up in BAMS),if you can stand the awful NYNEX customer service reps. Unfortun- ately, it is more the rule than the exception that although technically impressive, most inter-system call delivery regimes are not very well supported, by both lower-level technicians and customer service, which tends to discourage their use. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: mwgordon@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Mike Gordon) Subject: Bravo, Bravo +, etc. Pager Options and Programming Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci. Date: Tue, 14 Dec 93 01:19:11 GMT Four years ago, I was on a Bravo, now I see that the paging companies are pushing a variety of numeric pagers, including the Bravo + (or 2?), Bravo Express, the Freespirit (rounded looking moto pager) and those CHEAP NEC models. I'd like to stay with a Motorola, (I hear nothing but problems about the NEC) but which one? I like the time-stamp feature of the Bravo + and Express, and vibration mode is a must, as I'm often in noisy environments. What other features do these newer units have, and how useful are they? What options can the user set, and what ones can be set by the dealer? Since I'm sure most dealers don't want to go through the trouble of programming options, I'm sure they won't tell me about all of them. Also, has anyone figured out how to program a Bravo through the 3 contacts near the battery? (Without having to pay the paging company big $ to do it?) A buddy of mine wants to change the his beep sound (no, not his CAP code), and can't justify the $25 his paging company wants just to plug it in and hit a few keys on their computer. He has a PC, and can make a cable / interface if it isn't too overly complicated. Gee, could it just be a three wire serial connection? On a more serious note, last time I was on a pager, my call-in number used to be occupied by a "dealer". (And I don't mean a used car dealer.) As I worked third shift and often slept during the day, (and will be again, oh joy of joys) I didn't enjoy the calls at noon from his old customers. Does anyone have any little hints on how to avoid this? Please don't suggest having my boss call me at home during my sleeping hours, because that would mean I'd have to plug my phone in and get woke up by tele-marketers. (At least they don't call pagers!) By the way, the rep from the paging company could only suggest turning off the pager while I slept. Kind of defeats the purpose of having a pager when you're on call around the clock, and missing a call means losing a shift. Thanks in advance for any help, Mike Gordon N9LOI mwgordon@nyx.cs.du.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 20:22:58 CST From: Greg Abbott Reply-To: gabbott@uiuc.edu Subject: Radio Shack 900 Mhz Cordless > [Moderator's Note: The Radio Shack 900 mhz phone seems to be a very > good quality instrument. If anyone has tried it out or purchased one, > I would appreciate a review of it here. PAT] Pat: I had the chance to play with one at a nearby Radio Shack about two weeks ago. After being asked if I would like to try out their new cordless I picked the unit up and placed a call. I then, much to the manager's dismay, walked out of the store with the handset and walked down the sidewalk. This Radio Shack is located in a strip mall constructed of steel and concrete. I had no problems with the unit all the way down to the grocery store (about 400' away through all the concrete and steel). I was amazed. I was also able to place calls all the way out into the parking lot (well over 2,000 feet). In short, I found the unit very well built and certainly capable of living up to all of the statements made about it in the catalog. I gave a good report to the manager who was very pleased. BTW, the manager is a friend of mine, so don't think I make it a practice to pick up property and walk out of the store with it! The comments expressed here are my opinion. They in no way reflect an opinion or endorsement by/of my employer. GREG ABBOTT INTERNET: GABBOTT@UIUC.EDU COMPUSERVE: 76046,3107 VOICE: 217/333-4348 METCAD FAX: 217/384-7003 1905 E. MAIN ST. PAGER: 800/222-6651 URBANA, IL 61801 PIN # 9541 ------------------------------ From: zchris@eskimo.com (Christopher Nielsen) Subject: Big Switch Interfaces? Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 21:05:53 GMT We are looking for a way to interface a PC based voicemail type system to many types of switches out there. It seems difficult because each switch has different programming, different T1 specs, etc, etc I'm sure you've all heard it before ... It would be great if there some black box that could be used to interface to 'switch X', and on the other end have a standardized T1 interface that would allow transfers, accepting calls, and perhaps some other basic functionallity. Does anyone out there know of the likelyhood of such a black box? Failing that, does anyone know of (or is) a consultant that is very good at interfacing to many of the switches out there? Thanks for any help! Christopher Nielsen ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 15:35:03 -0500 From: reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux) Subject: Acoustic Coupler For PCMCIA Modem Wanted I'm trying to find an acoustic coupler adapter for a PCMCIA modem (Intel PCMCIA Faxmodem). Any solution short of taking apart a telephone jack each place I go help would be appreciated. reb ------------------------------ From: Ed Mitchell Date: Mon, 13 Dec 93 13:40:24 PST Subject: Problems With 911 In TELECOM Digest Volume 13 : Issue 811, Charles Hoequist pointed out the dangers of errors in the telephone company address database when that database is used for 911 dispatch operations. 911 dispatchers have told me that they recommend persons who are concerned about this to telephone 911 during off hours and ask that the dispatcher verify the address shown on the screen. What constitutes "off hours" varies by location so you shouldt first look in the phone book and call the emergency agency's regular business number and ask. I was told that a more common problem than having a completely incorrect address is to have corner lots (at the corner of two streets) reported as facing the street other than that used for the postal address, eg. 4204 Arastradero when 4204 Suzanne was intended. By the way, the dispatchers I spoke with said they usually attempt to verbally confirm your address while on the phone. Ed Mitchell "These opinion are my own and do not reflect the views of Microsoft Corp." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Dec 93 23:52:43 -0500 From: David Leibold Subject: Some Surveyers Want Exemption From Autodialer Tariffs [from Bell News, Bell Ontario, 13 Dec 93; content is Bell Canada's] Market/survey researchers to be exempt from ADADs tariff Bell has listened to the market/survey research industry and has informed the CRTC that certain market/survey researchers should be exempted from our original ADADs (Automatic Dialing and Announcing Devices) tariff filing. Of primary concern to markey/survey researchers was the proposed restrictions related to the hours of calling and random or sequential dialing. Representatives of Bell and the market/survey research industry agreed that placing strict limits on the hours during which they may call people could potentially affect the quality and accuracy of their research (e.g., certain types of people would not be available for interviews during the proposed hours of calling). The industry recognizes that calling people at unreasonable times could hinder researchers' abilities to gain the co-operation of the people they wish to interview. Although most interviews would be conducted within the hours proposed, in some cases calls could be placed outside of the proposed hours. Under Bell's original proposed tariffs, this could have resulted in the termination of the researcher's telephone service, should a customer complain to Bell (as per the complaint procedure proposed in the company's August 6, 1993 filing). The ability to randomly select telephone numbers is integral to the market/survey research industry. Industry representatives and Bell reps agreed that prohibiting the use of random dialing would hinder their ability to obtain research results that are representative of the general population. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 01:29:00 -0500 From: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Mind Games: A New Love Story Moderator's Note: Forwarded to the Digest by Mark Brader from the rec.puzzles group on Usenet where he found it. Look it over and think about it; I'll print the answer here in a day or two. PAT] From: lubin@fy.chalmers.se (Dror Lubin) Subject: A New Love Story Reply-To: lubin@fy.chalmers.se Organization: Chalmers University of Technology Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 08:33:39 GMT A New Love Story Once upon a time, in a far away land, there was a beautiful girl, who lived in a big big castle, just like in all the other stories that begin like this. Alas, the girl had a wicked mother who kept her locked. Where? In a red cell. The cell had a combination lock with three knobs. On one was written "red" on the other was written "cell", and on the third, the biggest, was written "nlrrecs". Our poor girl couldn't find out how on earth could she open this lock. As she couldn't get out, she decided to make her living in. She was a great cook, so she opened a road restaurant in her cell, or more properly: A cell-diner. She put outside a big sign saying: "NIIDSACAL CELL DINER" (niidsacal means "friendly" in her language). Of course, with such a name, not many people stopped there, and even if they did, they couldn't get in because of the lock, so business was rather slow. One day, a young prince heard about this girl. Nowadays, most princes are in the racing business, and so was he. Instead of a white horse, he had a big racing car. People often asked him if he had a white horse, and he would always say: "NO!, I have a racing car". Then they would ask him what does his car look like, and he would say: "Nice ... All RED!!". The registration plate was "ICDIINPNNS". He chose this plate because these were the initials of his name and title: "Isidor Charles Darwinski the 2nd, Noble Prince of Norway, Nashville and Seattle". Well, as ICDII heard the sad story of the girl in the red cell, he jumped into his car, and raced towards the evil castle. He was so furious, he did not see the huge oil truck coming towards him on the wrong side of the road. Boy, was that an ill-end-race!! ICDII became even more ill when he got the bill: $5,172,790.20, you see, it was he who drove on the wrong side, and without insurance too! After that, ICDII wouldn't hear anymore of no princesses, so our little girl is still locked away in her red cell, waiting for *YOU* to call her. Do you know her phone number?? ---------------------------- [Moderator's Note: Figure out the right phone number and send it to me **with an explanation for how you figured it out**. I'll print the answer in a day or two after a few replies have arrived. PAT] ------------------------------ From: shniad@sfu.ca Subject: Layoffs at NYNEX? Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 10:43:28 PST MASSIVE JOB CUTS COMING AT NYNEX? Boston -- NYNEX Corp. has declined comment on a report that it will cut 22,000 jobs over the next three years as part of a plan announced earlier to cut costs 30%. The {Boston Herald} said an internal NYNEX memo showed the telephone company plans to slash 28% of its 80,000-strong workforce by 1996 through layoffs, attrition and retirement. These would include some 7,100 jobs at it New England Telephone subsidiary, the report said. The memo called for 2,551 job cuts in 1994, it added. The company, which also owns New York Telephone, has already cut one sixth of its workforce in recent years to compete with rivals that are merging telephone, cable television and computers. "I can't confirm the numbers of workforce layoffs," said NYNEX spokesman Pete Goodale. He noted that the Herald report was "based on a single document and out of context." In September, NYNEX announced it would eliminate 1,200 jobs by June and several thousand more in the next few years. Goodale said NYNEX's plans to trim operations had already been made plain. "But there are a variety of ways of achieving this. How it plays in terms of workforce reductions is not yet determined." NYNEX shares closed up 1/8 on the New York Stock Exchange after the news was released. -- Reuter Sid Shniad ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Dec 93 12:03 EST From: David Appell <0005946880@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Union Losing Telco Jobs In Telecom Digest V13 #803 Eric_N._Florack.cru-mc@xerox.com wrote: > Regardsless of any other factor, companies whose primary goal is to > make money for it`s investors, will always and invariably move to > operate at a lower cost and a higher profit margin. Perhaps this is one of the things they're upset about: the unspoken assumption that *investor's* rights take precedence over *worker's* rights. Investment capital is only one of the requirements for a successful business -- labor capital is important, too. Yet, in the money-crazed, business-first environment of the 90s, those who have money to invest in a company are invariably treated better than those who merely give their blood, sweat and tears to it. There are real people underneath all those layoff numbers, whose belts are undoubtably tightened much farther than your average stock holder, institutional or individual. Both groups are necessary for a successful business, and a little perspective, even in this day and age, can't hurt. David Appell 594-6880@mcimail.com [Moderator's Note: That's why I like running Sid's commentaries and reports from time to time; they lend a little balance, a view of the other side of the coin. But Eric Florack has another rebuttal, so his article next will close this issue and this thread. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 09:55:09 PST From: Eric_N._Florack.cru-mc@xerox.com Subject: Re: Union Losing Telco Jobs Eric originally responded: >> What the article fails to point out is that the unions themselves are >> responsible for pricing themselves and the workers they claim to >> represent, out of the market. Sid replied: > Eric doesn't adduce any evidence to substantiate this claim. In fact, > real, inflation-adjusted wages -- in the unionized telephone industry > and other sectors -- have been declining for more than ten years. But > let's not let facts get in the way of a good diatribe. Let's just use > this baseless comment as the launch pad for further baseless > accusations. Declining in relationship to what, Sid, themselves? Non-union wages? Either one is a strong suggestion of just how out of line union wages have been ... and does /nothing/ to dispute my statment. In fact, it backs it. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good pro-union diatribe. Let's just use this baseless comment as the launch pad for further baseless pro-union spout. Asks Sid, > What evidence is there that regulation kills jobs? Carter. Johnson. Most recently, Clinton, and the reaction of industry to her agendae. The biggest example is the biggest regulator in the world; the former Soviet Empire. Just to name a few examples. Note that each of these was a friend of big labor. Then place in contrast, the deregulation attitude /after/ each of these administrations, and the well-documented spurt in job growth, after dereg, in each and every case. (See? I`ve even given you something to watch for, in the future. Remember, you heard it here first, gang! :->) Can you deny, for example, the number of newly created jobs that came along when the federal government allowed competition, by removing the regulation that established the monopoly of AT&T? > But if these are confiscatory, as you imply, how is it > that companies like MCI are finding ways to invest in overseas > expansion, takeovers, etc.? I don`t suppose it`s occurred to you that such investment goes to the places it`s most likely to earn a good ROI. Obviously, they don`t consider the best investment to be in the CWA controlled telecom market that we have here in the US. > But if these are confiscatory, as you imply, how is it that > companies like MCI are finding ways to invest in overseas expansion, > takeovers, etc.? You are attempting to have it both ways. You complain that they`re making too much money on vid services, and then you wonder where it comes from, as if they were making it all from their `cash cow`. Which is it? > However, when the normal workings of said Free Market generate > staggering loss of jobs -- for example, a recent {Wall Street Journal} > article reported that the Fortune 500 employed 16.2 million people in > 1990, versus 11.8 million in 1993 -- then this is treated as just a > natural unfolding of the workings of the world. What`s your solution, then? Back to the Xbar system, or before, so that all the operators will have their jobs back? Should we go even farther ... back to cord boards? What you`re dealing with is not free market forces alone, but the free market reacting to technology. You`d best understand, with the rest of us, that making money for the owners (nee:investors) is the number one goal of any company. Jobs are nothing more than a secondary function of business, albeit a happy one, and telcos are certainly no exception. And by the way, your F-500 comment is quite typical of someone attempting to prove a point with only half the statistics. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics, it is said. What your comment /does not/ indicate is how many jobs were created /outside/ of the F-500 ... which, in fact is where most jobs in this country are created, and a higher percentage of non-union jobs, at that. Being at work, I don`t have the figures to hand, but look it up. You will find that the number of jobs created by companies other than the 500 far outstripped the numbers of jobs lost by the 500 in the same period. A smaller number of people working under the F-500 umbrella, therefore, is an indication that free markets are working for the benefit of all, not that the system is failing. In short, tell the whole story. On the other hand, let's not let facts get in the way of a good pro-union diatribe. Let's just use this comment as the launch pad for further baseless pro-union spout. My regards to Pat, who says: > [Moderator's Note: Part of -- maybe the majority of -- the 'rabid > responses seen here come from the Dungheap Net (Usenet). I`m not on Usenet, so far as I know, FYI. > As you know Sid, I sent you a separate note a few minutes ago noting > that most of the readers here like to see two, or three or four sides > to every story. I certainly don`t object to such material being placed in here. Not only is that your call, Pat, but I happen to agree with you, in it. I simply reserve the right to respond to things when they come through ... one you apparently support, having echoed it out in the Digest. As to Sid`s comment about his post being taken as off subject; no, I don`t think it is.This is an issue that affects, on a first level, the future of the telecommunications industry ... the other implications for other industry and government policy towards labor not withstanding. In fact, I would suggest it`s those parallels to the rest of industry that make this an important topic. All this having been said, allow me to place a little perspective on all of this; my company (see my address) has just recently announced a ten thousand or so employee cutback, on a world-wide basis. /E Everyone`s entitled to my opinion, but Xerox doesn`t pay me for it.... [Moderator's Note: And I bet you hope you are not one of the 'ten thousand or so' they choose to eliminate. Hey Sid, better get some union membership sign-up cards over to Xerox right away! :) And Eric, I never claimed YOU were part of Usenet, although I guess my message came out sounding that way. Anyway, Usenet is now doing their own thing with telecom news in an unmoderated forum, as I'm sure will become obvious before long, even to the untrained eye! :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #817 ****************************** Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253