TELECOM Digest     Mon, 4 Apr 94 10:40:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 161

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    CID Modem Inits and Result Codes (Cid Technologies)
    STU 3 Secure Phones (Mark Kelly)
    Centrex - Disaster Recovery and Remote Access (Keith Luca)
    Question About MIN and ESN (Sathyadev Uppala)
    Satellite Seminar on Convergence of Computing, Telecom and TV (R. Layman)
    AT&T Screws up, Over and Over (Scott D. Green)
    Telco MUX to Home? (Roger Marquis)
    Information Wanted on Univ of Florida, Gainesville (Steven Glinberg)
    Bornstein, Cooper & Associates (Jeffrey Bornstein)
    Information Wanted on ATM (Apurva Shrivastava)
    New Use of ANI (Rob Boudrie)
    Help! Big Problem With Phone Company (smolko@che.ncsu.edu)
    Last Laugh! Dennis the Menace (Carl Moore)

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 GEnie.
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 of
Skokie, Illinois USA. We provide telecom consultation services and
long distance resale services including calling cards and 800 numbers.
To reach us:  Post Office Box 1570, Chicago, IL 60690 or by phone 
at 708-329-0571 and fax at 708-329-0572. Email: ptownson@townson.com.

    ** 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 gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom. It has no connection with the unmoderated
Usenet newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom.tech whose mailing list "Telecom-Tech
Digest" shares archives resources at lcs.mit.edu for the convenience
of users. Please *DO NOT* cross post articles between the groups. 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@netcom.com (Cid Technologies)
Subject: CID Modem Inits and Result Codes
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 03:15:37 PDT


I've recently been made aware that Caller ID decoding modems do NOT
all use the same init string and/or now display the CID information on
a terminal the same way.

For example, I *thought* that the standard CID Init to enable Caller
ID detection was: "AT#CID=1" (alternately you can use AT#CID=2 for the
"raw data" output format).

However, a ZyXEL modem user has told me that the Init string for him
is something like "ATS40=4" (or something like that, ie, not the same
as above).

Moreover, I had come to believe that the standard output format for the 
CID data was as follows:

TIME: 0900
DATE: 0401
NMBR: 6175551212

(I assume all modems with Rockwell chips look like this ... am I
correct in this assumption?)

However, it seems the ZyXEL outputs the info differently, and this
doesn't even take into account Canadian CID or CNID (with the name
somewhere in the string).

So, if anyone has a Caller ID modem whose Init string is different
from "AT#CID=1" to enable Caller ID detection, and/or whose output
string differs from the above example (including people with CNID and
CID in Canada), could you please drop me a note with what Init string
you use, or a copy of a typical CID output from a call? (You don't
need to use real numbers or anything, just so I'll know what the
format looks like ...)

Thanks in advance for any help!


Doug  dreuben@netcom.com 

(Since there will hopefully be a number of responses, please reply to netcom
instead of my usual Wesleyan address - thanks!)

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 3 Apr 1994 16:23:23 EDT
From: Mark Kelly <mkelly@gabriel.resudox.net>
Subject: STU 3 Secure Phones


Can anyone point me to (or provide me with) information about STU 3
phones. Based on a brief conversation I had with a potential customer,
I believe it is a portable phone that can be plugged into an standard
telephone jack to allow secure (scrambled) telephone calls.

The customer asked me if he could hold multi-party conference calls
using the STU phone through our service. We have direct T1 feeds from
our local telco into our digial conference bridge. DSPs in the bridge
mix the voice signals to do multi-point conferencing.

I suspect that the STU phone scrambles the voice signal and the DSPs
will just end up mixing a bunch of garbage.

If this is true, does anyone know of H/W that can be connected to T1s
to unscramble the incoming voice before it hits the conference bridge
and then rescramble it on its way back out the T1.

E-mail to mkelly@resudox.net would be appreciated. Thanks.


Mark Kelly   Advanced Multi-Point Conferencing   Kanata, Ontario, Canada

------------------------------

From: kluca@pipeline.com (Keith Luca)
Subject: Centrex - Disaster Recovery and Remote Access
Date: 3 Apr 1994 10:57:01 -0400
Organization: The Pipeline


My company has recently switched to NYNEX Intelepath Centrex service.
We were given several disaster recovery options which were all very
expensive.  If you use Intelepath or any other Centrex service,
preferably on an AT&T 5ESS switch, what kind of offsite disaster
recovery plan are you using?

Also, I would like to provide my users with remote access to the
switch but I'm very concered about the security issue. I have not
initiated this with NYNEX yet, but would appreciate any comments about
opening up you switch.

------------------------------

From: sathya@uw-isdl.ee.washington.edu (Sathyadev Uppala)
Subject: Question About MIN and ESN
Date: 3 Apr 1994 22:53:10 GMT
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle


What is the difference between MIN and ESN?

Each mobile unit in a celllular system has a unique ESN, so what is
the need to have a MIN?

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 08:46:38 EDT
From: Richard Layman <rlayman@cap.gwu.edu>
Subject: Satellite Seminar on Convergence of Computing, Telecom and TV


 The Public Broadcasting Service's Adult Learning Satellite
Service/The Business Channel, the Computer Television Network, and the
Data Processing Management Association have joined together to produce
a series of programs on information technology (IT) and
telecommunications.  {NetworkWorld} magazine is a promotional sponsor.
(Previous programs in this year's series were "Deploying New Computer
Technology Successfully" and "Solving Local and Wide Area Network
Challenges.")

 "Bandwidth and Public Policy: The Data Highway Debate and Its
Impact on Businesses" (4/14/94 - two hours) covers the convergence of
television, computing, and telecommunications, and explores what this
may mean for organizations.

 It features Robert Heldman, director of technical strategies
for US WEST and author of {Future Telecommunications}, {Information
Telecommunications}, and {Global Telecommunications} all published by
McGraw-Hill and Richard Wiley, former chair of the Federal Communications 
Commission and the leading telecommunications attorney in Washington, D.C.

 The program features filmed Q&A with George Gilder, one of the
leading "futurists" about convergence, and author of {Life After
Television} and {Microcosm}.  It will also feature filmed pieces with
VP Gore, Rep. Rick Boucher of the House Telecommunications Subcommittee, 
and others.

 Mr. Heldman is well-known in the telephone industry for trying
to figure out what their future may be -- his normal audience is made
up of the presidents of the local telephone companies.  Mr. Wiley will
discuss how the federal government and regulation will respond to
bring that future about.

 George Gilder has provocative ideas about how the computing
industry will be in the drivers seat -- and how the laws of the
microcosm and telecosm are driving much faster than 55 mph!  (He has
other provocative ideas too! -- for example, that cable companies and
telephone companies ought to be able to work together TODAY, even in
monopolistic situations, provided there are no barriers to unaffiliated 
content-providers.)

 Audience/Objectives: Everyone is talking about "video-on-demand" 
and the information highway.  Most of the discussion has focused on the 
home consumer.  This program focuses on the "enterprise" -- be it a
profit-making or non-profit organization.  The target audience is IT
and telecommunications managers.

How to receive this program:

 This program is distributed by the Public Broadcasting Service's 
Adult Learning Satellite Service, by satellite, direct to a site equipped 
with satellite-receive (TVRO) equipment.

 The license fee is based on the type of organization receiving
the program.  Affiliates of PBS-ALSS and Data Processing Management
Association chapters pay $175.  Other nonprofits pay $275.  Businesses
are charged $375.

University Downlink Tips:

 Many of the college and universities that license the ITS
programs do so through a continuing education division.  (This may be
in collaboration with a local chapter of the Data Processing Management 
Association and/or computing departments within the university, or with 
academic or administrative computing divisions.)  Most charge non-
University attendees a fee for the seminar.  You may wish to explore this
as a way to keep costs down.

Downlink Tips for Businesses and other organizations:

 If your organization doesn't have satellite-receive equipment
it is possible to identify a site in your area which does (colleges,
PBS television stations, and K-12 school districts, etc., to name a
few).  PBS account representatives can provide suggestions about sites
in your area.

 It is also possible that there is a site within your community
which has already licensed the program, and is making it available to
others within your area.  We can help you identify such sites as well
(send an e-mail request to rllayman@netcom.com).

For More Information:

 For questions about downlinking, licensing, etc., please
contact PBS's Adult Learning Satellite Service at 1-800-257-2578 or by
fax at 1-703-739-8495.

 You may also send additional queries by e-mail to:
 
rllayman@netcom.com

Thank you for your time and interest.


Richard Layman   Marketing Director
Computer Television Network   East Coast Office 
825 6th St. N.E.   Washington, DC 20002-4325
202-544-5722 (voice)   202-543-6730 (fax)
rllayman@netcom.com (email)

------------------------------

From: green@whrepro1.wharton.upenn.edu (Scott D. Green)
Subject: AT&T Screws up, Over and Over
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 1994 16:36:40


Here's a tale of AT&T Corporate Card/ProWATS hell that I've been going
thru since 11/93.  I share it with you to see if there are other
battle-scarred veterans out there.

My company, thru the Travel office and Telecom, got AT&T calling
cards hooked up with our AMEX statements to provide single-statement
"convenience" for submitting vouchers for reimbursement.  Our rate
schedule is on some sort of ProWATS plan, and provides a 10% discount
of the total.

So I get my 11/93 statement with a few calls between TX and PA listed.
They were all made during night or weekend periods, yet the Rate Code
listed is E(vening) or U (no rate - pretty strange for domestic
calls).  I also notice that calls made between the same CO's during
the same rate period were costed differently: three one-minute calls at
$.90, $.96, and $1.00.  I call their "customer service" line and,
shockingly, my next statement appears with a total of $5.43 in credit,
against original charges of $10.13!

Unfortunately on that (12/93) statement, I also had a bunch of new
calls, but our AT&T/ProWATS page turned into an AT&T/Corporate page,
and didn't have our 10% discount.  So another round with customer
service, only this time it has to go to the Corporate Card Center in
Charleston, WV.  Turns out that the entire university was billed
incorrectly.  They admitted it.  Of course, most folks who use calling
cards, and get reimbursed, have no incentive at all to analyze their
charges and/or discounts, so this is pretty much a ripoff, even though
AT&T pledged to credit back the differences.

So the next statement (1/94) comes in, with no adjustments.  AT&T said
that they're still working on it.

2/94 rolls in, and AT&T's fix was to credit back every call from
12/93, and then re-bill it.  This one is pretty interesting, because
virtually all the calls were re-billed at a higher rate (under
ProWATS) than under "Corporate", *even after the 10% discount*.  And
on top of that, there are several pairs of identical calls (CO's, rate
period, length) that are again billed inconsistently.  

First thing I do here is call AMEX and explain to them that I have a
dispute with a vendor (AT&T) and would they kindly not mark my account
delinquent while this is being resolved.  AMEX says they can't do
that, I have to call AT&T.  OK, I've got to call them anyway. :) AT&T
can't explain to me the billing inconsistencies; they can't even tell
me what the calling card surcharge is for the calls!  What follows is
a long series of phone calls to the Corporate Card Center, our local
AT&T AE, and the folks at this university in Travel and Telecom, who are
supposed to be watchdogging their vendor.

It was a frustrating month, because most of it was spent trying to
convince the aforementioned Bozos of the existence of a problem.  The
kicker came on my 3/94 statement.  I had one new call listed, placed
on a Saturday afternoon.  The rate code listed was E(vening).  Honest.
And, AMEX placed a polite "your account is delinquent" message on my
statement.  Another round of calls to my new-found extended family:
AMEX still says they can't deal with the AT&T dispute (why not?  they
handle it with every other vendor whose charges appear on their
statement); AT&T said I need to contact AMEX about the dispute.  AT&T
finally got the three of us on a conference call to fix that.  My
"personal" AT&T CSR tried to foist some of the blame onto *their*
"billing vendor," Cincinatti Bell.

So, while we're waiting for corrected charges, the university is
finally wondering how much we got ripped off for, and whether this
program is really worth it.  Meanwhile, AT&T, which has presumably
been in the business of providing toll-call service longer than
anybody, has not provided me an accurate billing since November, for
calls made in October.  That's six months, with no resolution in
sight.  How the mighty have fallen ...

------------------------------

From: marquis@netcom.com (Roger Marquis)
Subject: Telco MUX to Home?
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 01:37:19 GMT


When Pac Bell recently installed a second line into my (1940s) apartment 
building they didn't run any new wire but instead installed a new demark/
junction box.  When I opened this box to connect my second line I was
surprised to find only the one original line going in, and _two_ lines
coming out!  Could it be my lines are MUXed to the local switch?

I've tested the quality of both lines by making a voice call on one and a 
data call on the other (while executing 'sz /dev/zero' at 14.4+) without 
finding any measurable degradation.

The alleged MUX measures 2*3*3 in. and is fully sealed except for the
contacts.  Does anyone know what I have here?


Roger Marquis

------------------------------

From: sjg@cs.wisc.edu (Steven Glinberg)
Subject: Information Wanted on Univ of Florida, Gainesville
Date: 3 Apr 1994 22:57:58 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept


Sorry for the intrusion, but I was wondering if anyone could email
input on the University of Florida, in Gainesville.  I read this group
all the time and I figured I could reach a lot of people quickly this
way.

I have an opportunity to study there this summer, particularly in the
psych dept, and I would like input from anyone who studied/lived
there, to help me make my decision. (what the campus is like, how big
the school is, how close the campus is to the real world, about the
city, Gainesville, anything about the campus would be helpful)

I will be unable to read this newsgroup this week, but I will have access
to my email, so please email any responses to sjg@yar.cs.wisc.edu

Thanks much for your help.


Steve Glinberg
E mail: BEST ADDRESS       sjg@yar.cs.wisc.edu 
        2nd best address   glinberg@students.wisc.edu
        3rd best           glinberg@macc.wisc.edu

------------------------------

From: nteractive@aol.com
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 94 20:10:12 EDT
Subject: Bornstein, Cooper & Associates


BORNSTEIN, COOPER & ASSOCIATES functions as a Broker and "Clearing
House" for Agents and Marketing Companies that are already active, or
wish to become involved in the RESALE OF LONG DISTANCE SERVICES,
PRODUCTS, AND ANCILLARY ITEMS.

BC&A Principals have been active in the Telecommunications Industry
for over 40 years! Our Support Staff is located in all geographic
areas of the United States.

BC&A represents only reputable and proven PROVIDERS, RESELLERS, AND
CARRIERS who in most cases, are members of TRA (Telecommunications
Resellers Association). However, in all instances, each has been
carefully screened and researched by our company, it's legal staff,
and Dun & Bradstreet.

BC&A CONTRACTS Agents and Marketing Companies DIRECTLY with the
Providers, Resellers and Carriers that we represent. There are NO
"MIDDLEMEN" involved with you and your COMMISSIONS! However, we are
licensed to discuss all contractual issues so that you can achieve a
proper match and fit. Nondisclosure Forms ARE NOT REQUIRED, since BC&A
guarantees you can not secure a better deal, even if you negotiate
directly with our service providers.

If you are involved in Long Distance and desire: higher commissions,
better and more accurate reporting, and a safer environment to market
in, or ... if you are simply excited about becoming a part of a
growing ($60 BILLION MARKET) and dynamic industry ... look to the
experience and expertise of BC&A.

Our PRODUCT LINE consists of the following:

* OUTBOUND & INBOUND: AT&T, SPRINT, WILTEL, ALLNET,
  LDDS-METROMEDIA, LCI & WCT
* DEDICATED (T-1) ACCESS
* CALLING CARDS
* DEBIT (PREPAID) CALLING CARDS
* INTERNATIONAL CALLBACK
* OTHER SMALL BUSINESS DISCOUNT PRODUCTS & SERVICES
* QUALIFIED CUSTOMER/END-USER LEADS

For more information, please contact Jeffrey Bornstein (nteractive@aol.com)
or feel free to FAX/write or call for more information:


Jeffrey Bornstein
BORNSTEIN, COOPER & ASSOCIATES
1001 Village Road
Orwigsburg, PA  17961
(800) 754-4411
(717) 366-1699
(717) 366-1827 FAX

Jeff Bornstein   Bornstein, Cooper & Associates  nteractive@aol.com

------------------------------

From: ashrivas@st6000.sct.edu (Apurva Shrivastava)
Subject: Information Wanted on ATM
Date: Sun,  3 Apr 94 22:26:29 EDT


People,

I am looking for material on doing my thesis on routing problems
in ATM as this this is an open issue.

It has been suggested by my guide, Dr. Doreen Erickson, to ask
companies like Bellcore etc for material and also volunteer to do
research on their behalf. Of course all confidentiality papers etc.
would be signed by the entire committee. I have knocked one door after
another but have been very unsuccessful as yet. (My confidence level
seems to be decaying exponentially). All articles and material that I
have read seem to say 'ROUTING IS AN OPEN ISSUE', but nobody elaborates 
(proprietory problems?).

I know that this forum is very well and widely subscribed to and hence
would like to take the great opportunity offered by this medium to
request for help from all sympathetic souls.


ADVthanksANCE,

Apurva

------------------------------

From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Subject: New Use of ANI
Date: 4 Apr 1994 06:37:38 GMT
Organization: Ctr for High Performance Computing, Marlboro Ma.
Reply-To: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)


<all policital commentary left out, to address only telecom issues>

800-WHY-GUNS is an 800 number set up by a gun control proponent to
accumulate messages from people wanting to recieve literature on their
cause.

Interesting points :

- Some users report that the message changes after the third call
  from the same number, stating that calls from a single number are
  limited to three because of harassment from opponents [note: I wonder
  if they still pay for a call to their computers to identify the
  caller and leave this message?]

- The voice repsonse unit appears to do some checking on the zip
  code spoken into the system -- it replies invalid entry if you
  read in a nine digit zip (with a spoken dash in it).


Robert Boudrie         Center for High Performance Computing
rboudrie@chpc.org      293 Boston Post Rd West
(508) 624-7400 x635    Marlboro, MA 01752
  
------------------------------

From: smolko@che.ncsu.edu
Subject: HELP! Big Problem With Phone Company
Date: 4 Apr 1994 02:21:40 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway


I have a big problem with the phone company, and I'm not sure how to
deal with it.  This "friend" of mine who lives at the university is
forced to use a single long-distance carrier that charges top dollar
for long- distance calls.  Somehow he got MCI to set up an account
that would allow him to make calls on my phone, using a special code,
and have the bill for the calls sent to his address.  This seemed
rather unusual and so I called MCI to inquire about it.  I was told
that this is not really unusual and that I would not be responsible
for the charges if this guy doesn't pay the bills.  The impression I
was given was that the special code that he would use is something
like a calling card.  That being the case, I told him he could use my
phone.
 
For several months he has been using this arrangement with MCI to make
numerous, lengthy calls to a foreign country (he is not a U.S. citizen).
However, on my latest phone bill there was listed nearly $700 worth of
calls that this guy made using my phone.  When I called MCI to try to
rectify the situation I was told that his account had been closed by
the fraud department.  Apparently, he racked up between $3000 and
$4000 worth of charges on that account, paid some of it, and then
disputed the rest of the charges.  I was told by MCI that I am
responsible for the $700 bill since this guy used the phone with my
permission.  I was also told that they will probably come after me for
the other charges as well. Apparently, they may try to use the same
excuse -- that he used the phone with my permission.  However, as I see
it, there's a big difference between "Can I make a toll call on your
phone?" and "Can I make a toll call on your phone and have it charged
to my account?".
 
What are my legal responsibilities in a situation like this?  What is
the best way to handle this predicament?  I suppose I'll have to try
to collect the $700 from this guy so I can pay my recent phone bill.
As for the other charges, I guess I'll just have to wait and see what
happens.  Unfortunately, I don't expect it to be easy to get any money
from this guy.  I'll probably have to put a lot of pressure on him,
and even then I may never collect a penny.  I hope someone out there
can provide me with some helpful advice, as this whole thing is
starting to make me feel rather ill.
 
 
Dan   smolko@che.ncsu.edu


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The long-standing rule in telephony has
always been that each subscriber is responsible for the (physical) use 
of his instruments. That is, if someone uses your phone with your per-
mission, then telco will as a courtesy attempt to bill the call however
the party wants; but as a worst-case scenario, if the billing falls
through then it comes back to the subscriber as a last recourse. The
called party could agree to accept your collect call for example, and
if later they change their mind, you get billed. When you, or someone
you allow uses your phone, the tariff says you agree -- if no other
billing is workable (third party, collect, credit card, whatever) to
pay. If your phone is used, billing and collection is your problem.

Now in your case, there seems to be no physical use of your phone, thus
no liability on your part in that way. However, there is a credit issue
involved: did you agree to allow your credit standing with telco to be
used as the basis for an extension of credit to your friend? If the answer
is yes, that you told telco they could rely upon you for payment of your
friend's bills, then indeed you are now responsible for payment. Consider
it like co-signing a note for an automobile purchase or any other credit
purchase. On his own merits, he could not get credit, but you agreed to
help, and as a good customer, telco accepted your guarentee. As 'they'
say, now it is payback time.  

But did you really give this guarentee or permission to telco? Your first
paragraph seems to imply otherwise. You say he 'somehow' got MCI to set
up a credit account using your phone number as the basis for credit. Were
you aware that he got MCI to make these arrangements prior to him making
them? If so, then now this is your problem. You say you called MCI and 
were told this was not 'unusual'. No, it is not; telcos will issue credit
cards to 'friends' or roomates or whatever, but they do it on the basis
of someone, somewhere having a good credit standing and agreeing to pay.
Your account with the local telco sufficed for this purpose.

You say you were told by the MCI rep (orally I am sure, not in writing)
that you would not be responsible for charges. That amounts to the same
thing as a used-car salesman telling you that if you co-sign for some kid
to buy a car, you won't be held responsible if the kid defaults on the
payments ... of course you will be responsible! And needless to say, MCI
will deny ever making such a statement in the first place; maybe they
did and maybe they didn't. They'll help chase him, but its your problem.

Most likely if you do not pay, one of two things will happen. If the
charges are billed to you via your local telco, then failing to pay, 
you will get cut until you do. Telco may require a deposit to turn you
back on. If the charges were billed direct by MCI on a separate statement,
then if you fail to pay MCI will place you with an agency and probably auth-
orize the agency to sue you. If at that point you can convince MCI or the
court that you did not initially know of the billing arrangements and that
the guarentee was not authorized by you, then you will be off the hook. If 
you knew about the arrangement from its onset, it is unlikely the court 
will accept your word that MCI told you 'that you would not be responsible 
if party did not pay ...'. If you can convince the court (should you get 
sued, although MCI may simply write you off as a bad debt) that you did not 
initially know of the arrangements; that they were made without your
knowledge or permission and that you attempted to void the arrangements, 
then you will get off the hook. The catch is, what did you know and how soon 
did you know it and what efforts did you take to mitigate creditor's losses 
and your own? Only you and your friend know the answer to that, and should 
this go to the wall, a judge will decide who owes what.  PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Apr 94 7:53:07 EST
From: Carl Moore <cmoore@BRL.MIL>
Subject: Last Laugh! Dennis the Menace


I have just seen an episode of the "Dennis the Menace" TV series, made
in 1959.  It always opens with some mischievous incident; this morning, 
Mr. and Mrs. Mitchell were saying how someone "fixed" their phone so
they could dial long distance without having to go through an operator, 
and Dennis then talks about dialing and hearing the ringing sound (he
used nonsense syllables to describe it) and saying that "Aunt ___ was
surprised to hear my voice".  At that, Mr. and Mrs.  Mitchell have
astonished looks; left unspoken is "Dennis, did YOU make a long
distance call?".  (In case anyone is interested, Dennis was played by
Jay North; Henry and Alice Mitchell, his parents, by Herbert Anderson
and Gloria Henry; Mr. Wilson, by Joseph Kearns.  It was based on Hank
Ketcham's comic strip.)

That reminds me that the Nancy comic strip had Aunt Fritzie holding a
$98 phone bill and saying "NANCY, DID YOU MAKE ANY LONG DISTANCE CALLS?".

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #161
******************************


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
