TELECOM Digest Sun, 19 Dec 93 16:03:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 828 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Calling a PBX and Billing (Neil R. Henry) Caller-ID: Southern Bell Changes Rates (A. Padgett Peterson) Future of North American Numbering Plan (Robert L. McMillin) LD Rates From "Wholesale Club" (Richard Layman) ATT, MCI, Sprint: Who is Really the Cheapest? (Rudolf Usselmann) 10xxx Dialtone (was Re: Roch Tel 716 Goes From 1 + 7D to 7D (Paul Robinson) Re: Two Cell Phones With the Same ESN (Lars Nohling) Re: Quantum Economics (was Union Losing Telco Jobs) (Charles McGuinness) Re: Cable Channels (was Union Losing Telco Jobs) (A. Padgett Peterson) Re: Is UK IDDD Changing 4/94? (Richard Cox) Re: Is UK IDDD Changing 4/94? (Darren Ingram) Re: Is UK IDDD Changing 4/94? (Gordon Grant) Re: Is UK IDDD Changing 4/94? (Liz Auchinvole) Re: Inexpensive (Cheap ?) Modem Part II (A. Padgett Peterson) Re: Cellular Phone Serial Number (Steve Cogorno) Re: Cellular Phone Serial Number (Anthony D. Vullo) Re: 1-800 Caller ID (Dave Levenson) Re: Book Review: "The Smiley Dictionary" by Godin (Rodolfo Paiz) Re: Are Local Calls Kept on Record? (Gordon Croft) Re: Fax Networks (Steve Elias) Angry Monkeys Go on Rampage (Henry Mensch) 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. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu. The Digest is compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson Associates and redistribution/cross-posting of articles herein to news groups such as those distributed via 'Usenet' is prohibited unless permission is ob- tained in writing. This does not apply to *authorized* redistribution lists and sites who have agreed to distribute the Digest. All cross- postings or other redistributions must include the full Digest intact and unedited. 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. You can reach us by snail mail at Post Office Box 1570, Chicago, IL 60690 or Fax at 1-708-329-0572. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nhenry@netcom.com (Neil R. Henry) Subject: Calling a PBX and Billing Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1993 06:29:05 GMT I have a question for the collective net wisdom. I am doing a good deal of telephone work recently and am tracking the times and lengths of calls for clients. When I call a "direct number" at a large organization (through a PBX but direct to their desk), when do I begin to pay for the call? I hear the initial ring and then the diverted ring to voice mail. Do these make a difference? Does the PBX pick up my call and then ring its lines or does it work as its own switch? Does it mimic a switch to start billing when the line is picked up? I am on a nodding aquaintance with SS7 so I can handle the big words and acronyms. Thanks for any clarification. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Dec 93 08:01:14 -0500 From: padgett@tccslr.dnet.mmc.com (A. Padgett Peterson) Subject: Caller-ID: Southern Bell Changes Rates As you may know from previous postings, Southern Bell was charging U$7.50/month for residential Caller-ID service. With this month's bill I see that it is now U$6.00/month for basic Caller-ID and U$7.50 for number and name. They automatically changed my charge to the lower figure. Warmly, Padgett ------------------------------ From: rlm@helen.surfcty.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Future of North American Numbering Plan Organization: Surf City Software/TBFW Project Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1993 14:13:34 GMT I'm looking for a document that contains the future plans for the North American Numbering Plan. I tried looking in the Telecom Archives, but didn't find anything satisfactory. But before you say to me, "You need the history.of.area.code.splits file", please know that doesn't have quite what I want. I would like to know the status of Bellcore's proposals for 7D or 10D only dialing nationwide, as well as the proposed upcoming area code splits. Now ... who can help? Robert L. McMillin | Surf City Software | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Dude! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1993 12:36:00 EST From: Richard Layman Subject: LD Rates From "Wholesale Club" On Monday I received a direct mail package from "Long Distance Wholesale Club" 1-0-297-1 offering savings of 10-30% off "ATT, MCI, etc." Of course, their mailing didn't list the specific rates and I called. After telling the clerk repeatedly that I didn't want the pitch, just the rates, he gave 'em to me. Mileage 8-5 5-11 nite 1-55 .189 .12 .11 56-124 .198 .13 .12 125-925 .207 .14 .13 926+ .16 .14 .13 For day calls, that isn't bad, especially because my volume isn't big enough to justify an account with a WilTel broker and the like. I don't know if they provide service beyond DC, MD, and VA. Their number is 703-243-4600. ------------------------------ From: rudi@netcom.com (Rudolf Usselmann) Subject: ATT, MCI, Sprint: Who is Really Cheapest? Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1993 08:16:30 GMT OK, so now I'm getting calls on a weekly basis, asking to switch. And each of them has the cheapest rate ;). Anybody have a *total* and *complete* understanding of rates and services? Any kind of performance review? I do a lot overseas (Europe and Pacific Rim) calling. I need clean lines for mostly local high sepeed (14.4kboud) modem connections -- which is pobably handled by my local carier anyway (PacBell). Actaully I need good (clean) lines for long distance too, since I do alot faxing (mostly 9600bd). So, can any kind soul help me? Pleeeaaseee?! Thanks, rudi rudi@netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Who is cheapest and who is best is purely an applications thing; there are programs available for PBXs which claim to examine every possible factor involved (time of day, distance, etc) and make a decision call by call and carrier by carrier on how to route the traffic of the moment. Most of us don't have the volume of traffic to warrant that, nor the resources and time to continue studying the matter indefinitly, so we tend to pick and choose based on what sounds good at the time. Perhaps it is a premium being offered (modem, cash, etc) or perhaps it is the rate to a specific point at a specific time. Then we decide to examine the quality of the transmission, and realize the best long distance carrier (whoever that may be) is only as good as the caller and called party's central offices. This is sort of like the analogy that the chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Choose all the long distance companies you want; you won't have the option of selecting a local telco anytime soon, yet we still talk on the same instrument over the same pair of wires. A fellow wrote a book several years ago published by the Telecom Library (Harry Newton's organization in New York City) in which over several hundred pages he examined all the long distance carriers available at that time. He laid out all the rates, terms and conditions for service, etc. I wish I could remember his name and the name of his book. It got rather technical in places and the final conclusion the reader had to reach after reading it all? What is *your* specific application? Is your traffic great enough that it really matters? A few general rules of thumb might be: Do you make lots of daytime calls and very few nighttime calls? Then you want a plan which gives you a flat rate per minute unless your calls are mostly to nearby out of state points. Mostly nighttime calls? Then you do not want flat rate since those are biased in favor of daytime users. Instead, you want something which is time of day and distance sensitive. You'll have a big savings on your short calls to nearby points. Are your calls very very short in duration? Then you want a carrier who will bill in six second (or less) increments. If the carrier has a monthly fee in addition to call charges, can you justify or amortize that monthly fee in a short time each month and still save money? Would you be better off with a carrier who charges more per minute but bills in shorter increments, etc? And on and on it goes. You tell me who is best. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1993 11:29:08 EST From: Paul Robinson Reply-To: Paul Robinson Subject: 10xxx Dialtone (was Re: Roch Tel 716 Goes From 1 + 7D to 7D Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA Al Varney , writes: > Note these shorthands: > 00 = 10XXX+0# IXC operator > 0# = LEC operator > Also, 10XXX+# is cut-thru to IXC dial-tone (sorta like > 950-0XXX). There is no shorthand for this access, since '#' by > itself is an error. This is a special feature and is not available everywhere. Here is what happens on calls made from from Montgomery County, MD: 10000#: (A known invalid 10xxx code). Looooong pause. Click. "We're sorry, your call did not go through. Will you please try your call again." Message does not repeat. 10222#: Several seconds delay. "Your call cannot be completed as dialed. Please, check the number and dial again. 2CG." 10333#: Immediate click. "Your call cannot be completed as entered. Please check the number and try your call again, or call customer service. 44 230. " Message is not repeated. The voice appears to be Sprint's "Regular" error message woman. 10288# and 10732#: Several seconds delay. "We're sorry, due to telephone company facility trouble your call cannot be completed at this time. Will you try your call again later?" úÿ (continued next message) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Area # 700 EMAIL 12-19-93 17:03 Message # -6873 From : TELECOM Digest To : ELIOT GELWAN PVT RCVD Subj : TELECOM Digest V13 #828 ÿ@FROM :TELECOM@DELTA.EECS.NWU.EDU úÿ(Continued from last message) 10444#: Immediate click. "33-3. We're sorry, the number you have dialed is invalid. Please check the number to make sure you have used the correct area code or call directory assistance in the city you wish to reach." Where it doesn't say, the message is repeated at least once. Where it says the message is not repeated, it either goes to reorder (fast busy) after the recording or dead silence for ten seconds. Paul Robinson - Paul@TDR.COM ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 93 10:05 EST From: Lars Nohling Subject: Re: Two Cell Phones With the Same ESN If I read the FCC Quote correctly it is unlawful to change a phone's ESN number. Motorola has a procedure that transfers an ESN from one flip phone to another so that a defective phone can be replaced without having to notify the carrier. It sounds like this violates the FCC rules? Lars Nohling lnohling@mcimail.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not really, because other parts of the FCC regulations address the matter of what is called 'type acceptance' and who is or is not authorized to construct a transmitter and put it on the air. Motorola holds licenses from the FCC saying that their products have met 'type acceptance'. They are authorized to build and service radio equipment. ESNs have to be originated somewhere; the government does not create the ESN nor do the carriers. Motorola, as the maker of the phone originates the ESN and then advises the carrier what it is (through the registration process when a phone is purchased and put in use for the first time.) Please note also that when a firm like Motorola swaps out a bad phone for a good one under warranty for example and re-uses the ESN in the process, they are NOT permitted to return the old phone to the customer as part of the contract they have with the carrier. And despite what they say about 'not having to bother notifying the carrier', what they mean is the end-user customer does not have to bother with this. The carrier does get notified by Motorola, but it is just a paperwork transaction. The law was intended to address the cellphone phreaks who rarely are authorized to modify the phone in the first place, and never remember to complete the paperwork part (smile) ... if you get FCC authorization to build/repair cellphones and a contract or understanding with the carriers regards same, you'll be lawfully entitled to swap out ESN's also. And I dare say that if you have such authorization and decide to sneak through a few 'side jobs' for a phriendly phreak which get traced back to you, your license or authorization will be yanked as fast as you can snap your fingers. Motorola, Radio Shack, Cobra, Uniden and the others are not going to jeopardize their licenses which are worth a slight fortune to play games with ESN's. PAT] ------------------------------ From: marks!charles@jyacc.jyacc.com (Charles McGuinness) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 93 17:27:20 EST Subject: Re: Quantum Economics (was Union Losing Telco Jobs) A. Padgett Peterson writes that he thinks that there is not much of a logical reason for a 500 channel system. Specifically: > The point I am trying to make is that it is a common fallacy to think > "if enough is good, more is better". Simple logistics would be bad > enough: for example the TV viewing guide that comes in the paper now > requires four pages of bar charts for every day -- and this is just for > the "standard" channels, can you imagine the size of a 500 channel > listing ? I think the perspective is wrong. It's not that a system where you have to press "upchannel" 500 times to loop around is going to be a success, but a system where I get to choose which 40 (or whatever) channels are on display instead of the cable company will be. For example, the city I live in has quite a heavy population of native Italian speakers; no doubt, they would appreciate the addition of some Italian channels. I, on the other hand, would find no value in that, but would be thrilled to get BBC and perhaps some other european channels. When you add up the individual choices of all of us, suddenly 500 channels sounds like too few, not too many. I don't want 500 channels; 40 or so will do. But I want to pick the 40! charles ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 93 08:09:27 -0500 From: padgett@tccslr.dnet.mmc.com (A. Padgett Peterson) Subject: Re: Cable Channels (was Union Losing Telco Jobs) From: UVS1::"kindred@telesciences.com" 12-DEC-1993 23:17:34.13 > channels, it is quite possible that we each want 9 DIFFERENT channels. > The advantage of a "500" channel system would be that each of us can > select what we want, without preventing our neighbor from doing the > same. Hopefully the implementation of these new systems would allow > us to pay for what we wanted, and let us leave the rest behind. From what I have seen, the delta cost between 1 channel and 500 is essentially zero. The hard part will be in knowing what is on. It is easy to set a modern television to simply skip the unwanted channels, the hard part is in knowing what channel to turn on when. Unless some sort of tailoring of the "preview guide" is possible or an intelligent "TV-Guide" becomes available (weekly download?), the choices will simply overload most people. Warmly, Padgett ------------------------------ From: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk (Richard Cox) Subject: Re: Is UK IDDD Changing 4/94? Reply-To: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1993 06:00:30 GMT zarko@genmagic.genmagic.com (Zarko Draganic) asked: >> I heard that the international direct dialing scheme will be changing >> in the U.K. on Easter 1994. Can anyone confirm this? Almost. The change is scheduled for June 1994 (which will be the start of the permissive period); the old dialling will be turned off in April 1995. >> Right now I believe you dial 010 +1 to reach the USA from London. Correct. >> What's it changing to? 001 (i.e. 00+ CCITT country code) >> Why? Standardisation with the rest of Europe (and, ultimately, most of the rest of the world, apart from North America !) UK internal area codes will be changing at the same time. With a few specific exceptions, they are to be prefixed with a "1". i.e. London (currently +44 71) will become +44 171 Richard Cox, Mandarin Technology, Cardiff (richard@mandarin.com) Voice: +44 956 700111; Fax +44 956 700110: These numbers will NOT be changing in 1995! ------------------------------ From: Darren Ingram Reply-To: satnews@cix.compulink.co.uk Subject: Re: Is UK IDDD Changing 4/94? Date: 19 Dec 1993 09:01:05 GMT > I heard that the international direct dialing scheme will be changing > in the U.K. on Easter 1994. Can anyone confirm this? Right now I > believe you dial 010 +1 to reach the USA from London. What's it > changing to? Why? How long is the phase-out period? Correct. The UK will be harmonizing with Europe, so that the international access code will be 00. It is part of the PhoneDay project, which will also see a renumbering for *ALL* UK numbers and a recoding for five cities. Darren Ingram: (e-mail istserv@orbital.demon.co.uk and type 'subscribe satnews YOUR NAME' for satellite news worldwide. ------------------------------ From: gg@jet.uk (Gordon Grant) Subject: Re: Is UK IDDD Changing 4/94? Organization: Joint European Torus Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1993 10:40:56 GMT In Clive D.W. Feather writes: > Quoth Zarko Draganic: >> I heard that the international direct dialing scheme will be changing >> in the U.K. on Easter 1994. Can anyone confirm this? Right now I >> believe you dial 010 +1 to reach the USA from London. What's it >> changing to? Why? How long is the phase-out period? > Last I heard, it's been put back to Easter 1995. The IDD code 010 is > changing to 00 to bring it into line with most countries, and at the > same time a 1 is being prefixed to all fixed area codes (so +44 923 > ... becomes +44 1923) but not special area codes like 831 (allocated > to my mobile carrier) or 800 (free calls). > There is no phase-out period -- it's a straight cutover. Wrong! Both BT and Hg are allowing an eight month "Parallel running period" from the 1-Aug-1994 to Easter 1995. This applies to both the fixed location area codes and the international prefix. I have checked this information with the Hg changeover help desk on 0500 04 1995 (this number is only available from within the UK). After checking and ringing me back I was assured that the emergency number was not changing at the same time. Now I thought it was moving from 999 to 112. Anyone know when that's going to happen. BTW for overseas readers: Hg == Mercury Communications Ltd gg@jet.uk Gordon Grant Jet Abingdon OX14 3EA UK Voice +44 235 464792 Fax +44 235 464404 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 93 11:00:50 BST From: liz.auchinvole@aea.orgn.uk Subject: Re: Is UK IDDD Changing 4/94? The number change in the UK does not take place until 'APRIL 1995'. The international dialing code will then be 00 1 from the UK to the USA instead of 010 1 as now. Liz Auchinvole AEA Technology Harwell Laboratory ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 93 12:04:11 -0500 From: padgett@tccslr.dnet.mmc.com (A. Padgett Peterson) Subject: Inexpensive (Cheap ?) Modem - Part II úÿ (continued next message) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Area # 700 EMAIL 12-19-93 17:03 Message # -6872 From : TELECOM Digest To : ELIOT GELWAN PVT RCVD Subj : TELECOM Digest V13 #828 ÿ@FROM :TELECOM@DELTA.EECS.NWU.EDU úÿ(Continued from last message) A likely factor in the 144 price erosion is the COMDEX introduction of a slew of v32ter 19,200 modems ranging in price from $229 (quoted for Bay Connection Inc. Spectra-Com i192MX internal for PC in PC-Week) up. This is going to rapidly erode the price of "lesser" modems. Still in the wings are the vFast 28.8 modems. However I suspect that @ U$99.00, a 144 external will still find a lot of uses if the low price does not mask any other deficiencies. For reading E-Mail and telecommuting even 9,600 is "fast enough" IMHO. Seems the MACWarehose is not the only outlet for the U$99.00 14.4 FaxModem. The have a sister organization named (surprise) the PC Warehouse also in Lakewood, NJ (thought so as soon as I saw the girl on the cover of the catalogue). For those who might prefer PC cables and software, try calling 800.367.7080. One correction to my previous posting -- apparently the modem is made Prometheus Products in Tustin, Oregon and not Practical Peripherals. I would appreciate hearing from anyone who has more information about the SIERRA chip particularly the CALLER-ID function commands (both AT#CID=? and AT%CCID=? give ERROR). The major caveat seems to be that it requires class 2 FAX software and will not work with class 1. (Lacking proper software, I still have not tried this part but the AT+F commands seem to work properly). Warmly, Padgett PS: I have no connection with any of the above other than having bought one. ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Serial Number Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1993 11:31:21 PST > [Moderator's Note: Landline telcos are under no obligation to provide > a connection to 911 if your service was otherwise cut for reasons of > non-payment or fraud. Neither do cellular carriers have to provide > free air time to reach 911 to someone who won't/can't pay for it. PAT] Are you sure? PacificBell's intercept message on temporary disconnects says "this phone cannot place calls except to 911 and Pacifc Bell Business offices." However, this may be PacBell or CPUC policy. Steve cogorno@netcom.com #608 Merrill * 200 McLaughlin Drive * Santa Cruz, CA 95064-1015 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is apparently their policy to leave phones connected during a temporary 'disconnect' and continue to provide them with dialtone and limited calling privileges. On the other hand, when Illinois Bell cuts you off for non-payment, they refuse you any dialtone at all. If you go off hook, you'll get the battery and that's all. You reach *no one*. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 93 10:48 EST From: Anthony D. Vullo <0003250251@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Serial Number In V13 #801, we are confronted with: > [Moderator's Note: Landline telcos are under no obligation to provide > a connection to 911 if your service was otherwise cut for reasons of > non-payment or fraud. Neither do cellular carriers have to provide > free air time to reach 911 to someone who won't/can't pay for it. PAT] Pat, I've experienced several instances in my travels, where I've attempted to call 911 from my mobile phone to report a disabled car on the side of a highway, only to find that I was out of range. Most times, I found that I could switch to the other system (I have one account on one system) to make the call. I think that it is in the public interest for the carriers to connect emergency calls, even when no account exists. The analogy with disconnected landline service shouldn't carry here. Regards and Happy Holidays, Tony Vullo (No disclaimers needed when you speak honorably.) [Moderator's Note: I agree with your public interest theory, sort of, but what you did on the highway is nothing that anyone with cellular service can't do, i.e. change the A/B switch and make a call on the competitor's system when roaming. The only time I know of that you cannot go back and forth between A/B is when you are in your home territory. There, you have to specifically register with one or the other. Once you start roaming, neither of the carriers where you are at is going to know who you are; either or both is going to automatic- ally extend you the courtesy of one call while they validate your ESN and cellphone number with your home carrier. Now when they find out (through the validation process) that you are from the wrong side of the A/B divider, you'll likely get hassled on your second and subse- quent calls. But I don't think it is necessarily 911 they are giving you as a courtesy, it is that first call so you are not sitting there wasting your time while they do a validation check. The cell companies here also give 911 free of charge regardless of your credit status, and it is likely if Illinois Bell ever gets to the point they leave your line live during a suspension they will also provide calls to the business office and 911 during that interim. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: 1-800 Caller ID Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1993 06:19:16 GMT In article , Pat writes: [regarding ANI delivery on 800 calls] > [Moderator's Note: Just call the carrier handling your 800 service > and tell then you want automatic number identification displayed in > real time as calls are received. If they can't do it, you will need > to switch your service to some carrier -- such as AT&T -- who can. > You will *not* like the price they charge you for it. By comparison, > Caller-ID on a regular POTS line is quite cheap. PAT] U.S. Sprint charges $0.01 per call for real-time ANI delivery as part of their Clarity(tm) bypass 800 service. There is a one-time charge of $500 or so to activate the feature. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well as I said, you won't like the price they charge you for it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rpaiz@husc9.harvard.edu (Rodolfo Paiz) Subject: Re: Book Review: "The Smiley Dictionary" by Godin Date: 19 Dec 93 07:25:21 GMT Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts Rob Slade writes: > For even slightly more serious use, stick with Sanderson and > Dougherty. And we get this ... where? I'm interested ... Rodolfo ------------------------------ From: Gordon_Croft@mindlink.bc.ca (Gordon Croft) Subject: Re: Are Local Calls Kept on Record? Date: 19 Dec 93 19:37:00 GMT Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada > That one to Aurora cost me ten message units every five minutes, and > the guy called it for a half hour one day and twenty minutes the next Pardon my ignorance but what is a "message unit"? Is that local measured service or something? Just a comment on the original question ... I'm sure that some COs don't have the ability to record local calls. What I'm thinking of is some of the old Step by Step switches that we still have in some of the smaller areas of British Columbia. Just my CDN $0.02 worth... that's about US $0.0000002 !! :) Gord [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In Ameritech/Illinois Bell territory, a 'unit' under the old system (in the 1970's) was a measure of time and distance. Local calls have been measured here for years unless you had the old unmeasured plan, long since discontinued. Calls cost a certain number of 'units' and each business telephone was given 80 'units' per month as part of the basic monthly charge. Extra 'units' in those days cost about three cents each. On the real old equipment, the only way they had of keeping track of local calls was by the use of a device called a pen register. Typically a pen register was only placed on a subscriber's line when the subscriber insisted the message count from one month to the next was inaccurate. Of course the security department tended to use pen registers a lot also in the course of their duties. There was never any law (and still isn't) saying telco can't keep track of who calls where; after all, it is their system and their responsibility where accurate billing is concerned. Its just that in the old days it was usually too much to bother with on local calls unless the need was present. PAT] ------------------------------ From: eli@glare.cisco.com (Steve Elias) Subject: Re: Fax Networks Date: 19 Dec 93 13:20:50 GMT Organization: cisco Systems Bob, the email->fax network that you have described is currently set up on the Internet. It is called the tpc.int remote-printing experiment. Mail to tpc-rp-request@aarnet.edu.au if you would like to join the experiment as a user and/or a server. There is also a FAQ file available. eli ------------------------------ From: hcm@netcom.com (Henry Mensch) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1993 11:24:12 PST Reply-To: hcm@netcom.com Subject: Angry Monkeys Go on Rampage On Dec 2, 2:07, TELECOM Moderator quoted someone else: > "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million > typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare." > -- Blair Houghton On the Usenet, nobody knows you're a monkey. -- h [Moderator's Note: Not only that, they are so liberal they don't even care if you are a monkey or not. A few even openly admit to being úÿ (continued next message) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Area # 700 EMAIL 12-19-93 17:03 Message # -6871 From : TELECOM Digest To : ELIOT GELWAN PVT RCVD Subj : TELECOM Digest V13 #828 ÿ@FROM :TELECOM@DELTA.EECS.NWU.EDU úÿ(Continued from last message) monkeys and say they are proud of it. For those of you who are unable to benefit from the wisdom of the ancients shared each day in news.groups (a fine example of what Abusenet is all about) you'll be interested to know they have been on quite a rampage the past couple weeks since they went into involuntary TELECOM Digest withdrawal. "Put it back!", they screamed as only noisy, angry monkeys can do. "It belongs to us! You only work for us; you don't own it!". From the commotion, you'd have thought they found someone had stolen the monkey-chow out of their bowls at mealtime. In a sense, maybe I did. I wonder if I should reconnect them? After all, its not the fault of the vast majority that a few of the monkeys are more vicious than the others but it had gotten a little more than I was willing to deal with. I'll accept comments in private email from *list subscribers only* on whether or not Usenet should receive the Digest as before. Consider this the Call For Discussion, Call For Votes and Call For Sanity all at one time. If the mailing list members want to include Usenet, I'll give it favorable consideration -- its YOU I am trying to serve, although you must know by now how I feel about the net. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #828 ****************************** Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253