TELECOM Digest     Fri, 20 May 94 10:28:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 241

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Belgian Phone Company Rips Off Customers! (Leo Nederlof)
    ANI by Calling 1 800 XXX XXXX (quixote@eskimo.com)
    GSM "Short Messages"==Pager? (Greg Alexander)
    Re: What is the Mercury Button? (Clive D.W. Feather)
    Re: "Howdy Mail"? Scrawl-Like Writing Device (Clive D.W. Feather)
    Re: What is a Synchronous Modem Eliminator? (Stacy L. Millions)
    Re: Cellular -> Analog Converter (Dave Ptasnik)
    Re: Lexus Cellular Phones (Greg Alexander)
    Re: 800 Number Billback (Tim Russell)
    Cost of Large Fiber Systems (Stewart Fist)
    Re: Need Criteria for Choosing a Phone Number (James D. Oliver III)
    Re: "Free Trade" Rules (Alan T. Furman)
    Re: Problems With Call Return (Al Quaglieri)
    Re: Problems With Call Return (quixote@eskimo.com)
    Re: Problems With Call Return (Al Cohan)
    Call Return is *Good* (Dave O'Heare)
    Re: "TV & Movie Mania" Radio Show Hits the Info Superhighway (R. Gellens)
    Re: Video Conference Bridges (teleconxiv@aol.com)
    Illinois Ringback Numbers (Michael Fumich)
    Free Information - Teleconferencing Show (teleconxiv@aol.com)
    Last Laugh! Signs You Have a Bad Long Distance Company (Top 10 List)

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.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. 

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 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: 708-329-0571
                        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.

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: Fri, 20 May 1994 12:59:12 +0200
From: Leo Nederlof <lned@rc.bel.alcatel.be>
Subject: Belgian Phone Company Rips Off Customers!


Having migrated to Belgium about two years ago, I have had to adapt my
standards concerning public utilities to a significantly lower level.

The phone company, Belgacom, is one of them.

It started already when I first applied for a connection. After three
months and several visits of inapt service people, I pulled myself a
cable from the cellar of the building to my apartment on the third
floor, after which the phoney people came, installed a wall socket and
charged me the full entrance fee, 4183 belgian francs - about 150 US$
(for which they are legally assumed to even dig a cable to a remote
farmhouse, if necessary).

Last month I had my connection moved to another house, where wall
sockets were already installed. For Belgian standards, this happened
almost flawlessly, since it took them, after my old connection had
been disconnected, only four days and two visits to get the new
connection on-line.

The surprise came when I got my phone bill last week: I have to pay
the full entrance fee again!!! This is crazy! Who do they think they
are?  If it weren't for the monopoly, they would never keep their
customers.

On top of this, the quality of the phone lines is, as we would say in
Dutch, kut met peren, meaning far below any acceptable level. Noise,
blocking, excess dialing delay, you name it, they got it.

I can't wait for competition to enter the telecom market here ...


Leo Nederlof              Alcatel Bell Research Centre
lned@rc.bel.alcatel.be    Network Technology Group
phone: +32 3 240 7613     Francis Wellesplein 1
fax:   +32 3 240 9932     2018 Antwerp - Belgium

Disclaimer I: opinions expressed are my own, not my employer's.
Disclaimer II: I do not mean to offend Belgian people in general; there's 
a lot of nice and friendly people here (and besides, I have to live with 
them.)

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

From: quixote@eskimo.com
Subject: ANI by Calling 1 800 XXX XXXX
Organization: Eskimo North 
Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 13:51:56 GMT


About ten months ago, I read in alt.dcom.telecom or comp.dcom.telecom a
posting which contained a number, I think it was 1 800 235 1414, if I
recall correctly. By dialing it one would obtain one's own number as a
demonstration that call blocking does not work when calling 1 800 XXX
XXXX numbers. After that, they would advertise a 1900 XXX XXXX number
which would circumvent this.

Well, maybe I do not have the correct number or maybe it does not work
anymore.  After having been posted here they must have got many many
calls.  Does anybody know if this service has another number now?  Or
does anybody know any other numbers for obtaining ANI, in the Seattle
area?


Thanks,

Carlos.

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

From: gregalex@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Greg Alexander)
Subject: GSM "Short Messages"==Pager?
Date: Fri, 20 May 94 03:41:45 EDT
Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida


I am interested in buying a GSM phone, and was hoping to learn a
little more about the short message service offered in some.

This service allows the caller to be transfered to an operator (if
your line is busy or whatever), where they leave a message which pops
up on your phone.

I have spoken with several stores, service providers and
representatives of the actual phone makers themselves (Nokia) (in
Australia), and have got different stories from everyone as to how it
works.

Is it a pager -- or a digital message that appears when your phone is
in range? My interest is because I will often be in No service areas
(eg Asia Pacific -- Thailand, and non city areas of Australia). If its
a pager -- cool, I will still be contactable. If it relies on being in
the area -- good too (I will NEVER miss the message).

So both have strengths, but I'd like to know what I'm getting. (Both 
would be great -- but very unlikely ;)


Thanks for any help!

Greg  galexand@ozemail.com.au

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

Subject: Re: What is the Mercury Button
Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 12:41:00 BST
From: Clive D.W. Feather <clive@sco.COM>


Something the other messages in this thread have omitted is that, even
if the phone has a display, the contents of the blue Mercury button
are not displayed during dialling or by any "display memory" feature.

We now subscribe to 132 service, so I can forget the laboriously
memorized ten digit PIN.

Readers of Telecom worried about security might be interested to know
that Mercury send out the PIN in two separate letters, one giving the
first six digits, and the other, posted on a different date, giving the
other four.


Clive D.W. Feather      Santa Cruz Operation 
clive@sco.com           Croxley Centre       
Phone: +44 923 816 344  Hatters Lane, Watford
Fax:   +44 923 210 352  WD1 8YN, United Kingdom

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

Subject: Re: "Howdy Mail"? Scrawl-Like Writing Device
Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 12:47:12 BST
From: "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@sco.COM>


According to _The_Codebreakers_ by David Kahn, the first teleautograph
was used in France to connect the War Office to Army Headquarters (or
something similar; this is from memory). It was viewed as secure
because there was only one machine in the world!


Clive D.W. Feather      Santa Cruz Operation   
clive@sco.com           Croxley Centre         
Phone: +44 923 816 344  Hatters Lane, Watford  
Fax:   +44 923 210 352  WD1 8YN, United Kingdom

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

From: stacy@sobeco.com (Stacy L. Millions)
Subject: Re: What is a Synchronous Modem Eliminator?
Organization: Sobeco Ernst & Young
Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 11:56:15 GMT


In <telecom14.231.6@eecs.nwu.edu> vmatho@mason1.gmu.edu (Victoria
Matho) writes:

> Does anyone know what an SME or synchronous modem eliminator does??

They are the rough equivalent of the async null-modem cable. They are
used to put two sync devices back to back if you are unable to configure 
one of the devices as a DCE. I have one from Electrodata Inc. that I bought 
about four years ago. I use it to test routers. It can be configured
to provide clock rates from 14.4kbps to 896kbps.


stacy     stacy@sobeco.com   stacy@sobeco.ca   sobeco!stacy

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

From: davep@u.washington.edu (Dave Ptasnik)
Subject: Re: Cellular -> Analog Converter
Date: 20 May 1994 06:37:58 GMT
Organization: University of Washington


burner@iia.org writes:

> Does anyone know of an adapter/converter that connects to a cellular
> phone (most likely in place of the handset) and provides an analog
> RJ-11 jack?  Or, is there some other way to connect analog phone

If you have a Motorola flip phone, there are several manufacturers who
make them.  They generally cost less than $150, and are available from
any more competent cellular dealer.  Appliance stores may not be aware
of them.

All of the above is nothing more than the personal opinion of - 


Dave Ptasnik  davep@u.washington.edu

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

From: gregalex@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Greg Alexander)
Subject: Re: Lexus Cellular Phones
Date: Fri, 20 May 94 02:59:58 EDT
Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida


elitman@proxima.com (Eric A. Litman) writes:

> I was recently going over the phone options for the Lexus GS300, and
> noticed that the phone system Lexus offers is a Motorola -- basically a
> souped-up AlphaTac. When installed by a Lexus dealer, the phone
> integrates with the stereo system and the AC to mute the stereo, lower
> the AC, and allow conversations to be held over the car's audio system.  
> My question is, can my Motorola DPC550 handheld be integrated into
> this system, or are there special "hooks" in the Lexus-specific phone?

Don't know about that model, but (apparently) the new Lexus LS400 has
a portable phone. I won't see it till Saturday, but I've heard it
*looks* like the Microtac.  Might help your enquiry if you ask the
dealer about that model.

Hope that helps some.


Greg   galexand@ozemail.com.au

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

From: russell@ursa-major.spdcc.com (Tim Russell)
Subject: Re: 800 Number Billback
Date: Fri, 20 May 94 1:09:59 EDT


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The 'way they can charge you for calling
> an 800 number' is the same way AT&T can charge for it. For example you
> can call AT&T's 800 number to put through a collect call to someone or
> to charge a call to your credit card. Merely because you originated it
> via an 800 number does not mean charges cannot be incurred for the call
> as a result. In the case of the Information Providers who use an 800 
> number in this way, *someone* in your firm called the 800 number and
> gave the answering operator permission to place the charges on your line.

    PAT, I have a feeling you're off base on this one.  Remember the
scam a couple of years back that was billing directly for calls to an
800 number?  Well, the latest rage in the 800 and 900 business is a
concept called "calling card", and it's a way of getting around the
FTC rules that came out of that.

    Basically, it requires two calls to the same number, one to "activate" 
your card, and one to actually get into the program and get billed.
The process of calling back supposedly establishes a client relationship 
and gets around the FTC rules.

    I'm nearly certain that's what at least some of the calls in question 
were for, especially seeing VRS mentioned: they're big billers for this.

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

Date: 20 May 94 04:49:13 EDT
From: Stewart Fist <100033.2145@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Cost of Large Fibre Systems


Can anyone give me some confirmation on figures that I've been
collecting on the capital cost of large-scale, long-distance fibre
optic cable systems?

My current information is that the cost of the cable and the electronics 
is about equal, and each represents about 30% of the total cable costs.
36-fibre terrestrial cable costs $12 per metre in Australia.

The other 30-40% of the capital outlay is for design, supervision,
equipment housing, power, trenching, transport, etc.  Does that
division sound about right for the average terrestrial system?

With fibre cables having data-rates of 2.4Gbit/sec, does 40 to 50kms
between repeaters sound about right?  I would have thought more based
on the 150km distances now being achieved in undersea cables (at a
lower rate), but I'm told that 40/50 is now average.

What rough price should I allocate for each repeater on each fibre
(allowing for any extras needed to drive and house it).  In most cases
a 36-fibre cable will only have a few fibres commissioned so I need to
work it out on a per fibre, or per pair basis.  What about the average
cost of 2.4Mbit/s terminal equipment?  I was quoted $16,000 for a
2.4Mbps optical fibre multiplexer (presumably, using a pair of
fibres); is this about right?

I know all these prices are always highly variable, and subject to
enormous variations, but if anyone can provide price guidelines, or
just rules-of-thumb guidance, it would be appreciated.

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

From: oliver@medg.lcs.mit.edu (James D. Oliver III)
Subject: Re: Need Criteria for Choosing a Phone Number
Date: 20 May 1994 09:10:48 GMT
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science


A few years ago I had a roommate named Joe who was about to move into
a one bedroom apartment and, thinking it would improve his social
life, was going to get SEXY-JOE as his phone number.  He dropped the
idea after we pointed out that a) women weren't going to go for it and
b) we would use this as ammunition for a lifetime.


Jim Oliver    oliver@medg.lcs.mit.edu 


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Back about 1962-63 I got a phone line in
my apartment which spelled PATRICK. Actually it was 312-RAvenswood-8-7425.
I did not keep it very long and don't remember why; it seems to me that
whoever had the number before myself had polluted it pretty badly with
messages left in strange places written on walls, etc.   PAT]

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

From: atfurman@cup.portal.com
Subject: Re: "Free Trade" Rules
Date: Fri, 20 May 94 02:54:46 PDT


Dale Wharton writes:

> For the rest of us, the prospect of government helplessness and
> all-out international competition in the communications industry does
> not appear so attractive.

In the USA, we thank our lucky stars that we have the Clipper Chip to
save us from the horrors of government helplessness.

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

Date: Fri, 20 May 94 02:44 EST
From: Al Quaglieri <0005682193@mcimail.com>
Subject: Re: Problems With Call Return


Russ Greene recently wrote of his annoyance with Call Return 
(TELECOM Digest Vol. 14 #236). Here is the comment I mailed him:

RG> Below is a letter I'm sending to Pac Bell and the Public 
RG> Utilities Commission regarding my dissatisfaction with Call
RG> Return.

RG> Feedback, comments and discussion are invited.

Dear Mr. Green,

As a writer who works from home, I find the telephone a necessary
annoyance. During my working hours, all calls are screened via the
answering machine. Picking up the phone requires me to stop working,
so I only do so when absolutely necessary. Any call, even one left for
the machine to deal with, makes for a break in my concentration.

Although I've trained my friends to call once and leave a short
message, there are still others who steadfastly refuse to talk to my
machine. Instead, they will call every half hour and, not reaching a
human, hang up.

Call Return has helped me virtually eliminate this rude and
unnecessary telephone behavior. It has also effectively squelched
crank callers, wrong-number dialers who repeatedly refuse to believe
they've dialed a wrong number, insistent salespersons, and other
shifty characters who refuse to identify themselves.

It's incredible thing that we willingly install loud bells in our
homes which anyone, anywhere can make ring, any time of the day or
night. We accept this lousy situation for the sake of communication.
The very intrusive nature of the medium makes "reaching out and
touching someone" a privilege, not an assumed right. If you have the
power to ring this bell in my house without subsequently conveying any
useful information, I'm happy to have the power to tell you to cut it
out.

Viva Call Return!


Al Quaglieri    AQUAGLIERI@MCIMAIL.COM

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

From: quixote@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Problems With Call Return
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 13:36:10 GMT


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The fact that she used it in an extreme 
> way ...
> ...  message and would call again later. Ordinarily, Call Return is a 
> good idea since it allows a person who has just missed (typically within 
> seconds or minutes) receiving a call due to being somewhere else. However 
> in this case ...

I thought that one purpose of "call return" was to be able to call
back an "anonymous caller" without knowing his(her) number.  This was
not clearly stated in the brochure about "caller id" services from
Uswest, so I telephoned them, the lady who answered hesitated about my
question, transferred me to another person who confirmed that
"anonymous calls" can indeed be returned.  The problem was that in my
area, Seattle, "last call return" has not been authorized, even though
most other related services have been.


Carlos

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

Date: Thu, 19 May 94 15:07 EST
From: Al Cohan <0004526627@mcimail.com>
Subject: Re: Problems With Call Return


Since Party "A" initiates the call to Party "B" in the first place,
why shouldn't Party "A" be charged for the call when Party "B" elects
to use Call Return?

All of the TV Promo's that I've seen usually show a lady running into
the kitchen with two or three large shopping bags in her hand, putting
them down on the table then making a mad dash to the ringing wallphone, 
only to pickup and hear dialtone. They of course the pitch for call return, 
not missing a call etc.

What if the first calling Party "A" was telesleeze? Interesting thoughts 
come up when the issue of who is paying for the call comes up. I personally 
view Call Return as a form of roulette. What even happened in the "old
days" when Party "A" just simply called again?  


Al

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

Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 10:50:43 -0400
From: doheare@jetform.com (Dave O'Heare)
Subject: Call Return is *Good*


We were subject to a large number (several per day) of calls that left
no messages on the answering machine. When this happens over a period
of days or weeks, even the most confident person can become worried
that someone might be "casing the joint".

We signed up for CLID and got a display. If someone leaves a message
on the machine, I'll return the call at a reasonable hour for that
person.  If they don't leave a message, and the number isn't one I
recognize, they get a call back when I get to the machine, whatever
time it is.

"Hi, you called" in as cheery a voice as I can manage. We then go
through as long a song and dance as needed to figure out why they did
me the discourtesy of not leaving a message. I then "educate" them (as
the original poster said) of the need to leave a message, so that they
won't get a phone call like the one I just put them through. I've
talked to a lot of telemarketers that way. It amuses me greatly to
waste their time instead of them wasting mine :-).

If a call comes through as anonymous while I'm home, I answer the
phone with "What the f**k have you got to hide?" in as foul-tempered a
bellow as I can manage (usually pretty good :-). Nobody's ever done it
twice.


Dave O'Heare    doheare@jetform.com

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

From: RANDY@MPA15AB.mv-oc.Unisys.COM
Date: 20 MAY 94 01:36:00 GMT   
Subject: Re: "TV & Movie Mania" Radio Show Hits the Info Superhighway


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Lauren Weinstein is a long time
> participant in the Internet, and a charter subscriber to TELECOM
> Digest, dating back to 1981 when this journal was first published.
> From time to time I like to reprint his classic message, "The Day the
> Bell System Died", and before long it will be time for it again.  His
> latest venture, the "Neon" thing, has been enormously successful and
> if you have not called to listen to it, you really should.  PAT]

As I recall, not only was Lauren a charter subscriber to the Digest,
but he was a very prolific contributor to it and the Digest from which
it spun off (Human-Nets).  So prolific that there was a rumor around
that Lauren was not human, but an AI experiment at UCLA.  There were a
few attempts at proving this theory by counting the number of posts
from him and their length, and "demonstrating" that no human could
have posted them all in so short a time, nor could a human have
answered so many questions in such technical detail in so short a
time.  I can't remember if Lauren ever actually confirmed or denied
those rumors ;-)

Of course, those were the days when the net was one (small by today's
standards) collection of hosts, and people were very friendly and
open.  One major site was proud of running with no security at all.
Anyone anywhere could telnet to them, and have total access to their
system.  This was very conducive to learning, and research.  It was a
very different atmosphere, and of course was eventually ruined.
Someone deleted their files, thinking themselves clever, I suppose.
About as clever as walking into a library and pouring ink over the
books.


Randall Gellens        randy@mv-oc.unisys.com
Net**2 656-6350    (Please forward bounces to
Mail Stop MV 237        rgellens@mcimail.com)

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

From: teleconxiv@aol.com (TeleConXIV)
Subject: Re: Video Conference Bridges
Date: 20 May 1994 10:18:02 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)


In article <telecom14.125.8@eecs.nwu.edu>, John McHarry <mcharry@access.
digex.net> writes:

There are a number of companies making videoconferencing bridges.
first are the main codec manufacturers - CLI, PictureTel, VTEL, GPT,
BT, NEC.  There are also companies like VideoServer.  Most of today's
bridges are ITU/TSS H.320 (or some subset) compatible.  Most of the
codec manufacturers have proprietary algorithms in their own multipoint 
control units (MCU's).  CTX. CTX+, SG-3, etc.  Send e-mail if I can
give you more information (dboomstein@aol.com).

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

Date: Fri, 20 May 94 09:17:00 EST
From: North Coast Communications <0005082894@mcimail.com>
Subject: Illinois Ringback Numbers


As noted in previous messages, ringback for most Ameritech served
numbers seems to be "1-57X" + the last four digits of the phone
number.  Another writer noted that "511" + last four digits works as
well. This is also true in many locations. If the above does not work,
try 511 + "your FULL seven digit number". This is what works here in
708-891, 862, and 868 and other locations I have tried.

Now does any have the current ANI (200) number? It USED to be 200-TEL1,
(or 200TEL 0-9). Many of the ANI numbers seem to be mnemonics of some kind.


Michael Fumich      (reply to: 3311835@mcimail.com)

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

From: teleconxiv@aol.com (TeleConXIV)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Free Information - Teleconferencing Show
Date: 20 May 1994 10:30:03 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)


          Information to Attendees and Exhibitors

                        TeleCon XIV
The Fourteenth Annual Teleconferencing Users Conference

THE WORLD'S LARGEST CONFERENCE AND TRADE SHOW ON TELECONFERENCING

                  October 12, 13, 14, 1994
                  Anaheim Convention Center
                     Anaheim, California

Covering:  

   *All forms of teleconferencing; Videoconferencing, Audioconferencing 
and Audiographic Conferencing, Computer Conferencing, Collaborative 
Computing;
   *Local and Wide Area Networking (LAN/WAN)
   *Distance Learning
   *Telecommuting, Telemedicine
   *Applications of the National Information Infrastructure  (NII)

TeleCon is the worlds largest conference and trade show on teleconferencing.
The teleconferencing industry is currently over $3 billion and growing.  
TeleCon XIV is expected to have attendance of over 12,000 people at
the exhibits with over 5,500 attending all three days of the session.
TeleCon XIV will have over 700 exhibit booths.

Building upon Telecon XIII's 1st Desktop Showcase in 1993, Applied
business teleCommunications has expanded the desktop area into its own
hall at the Anaheim Convention Center.  The Desktop Showcase provides
exhibitors with the ability to demonstrate all types of desktop
communications: video, collaborative computing, groupware, multimedia
applications and video on demand side-by-side in one area.

Plans are being made for the showcase to feature networking connectivity 
between showcase booths and three interoperability booths:

 * Consortium for Audiographics Teleconferencing (CATS)
 * Packet Video 
 * Intel Personal Conferencing Initiative (PCI)

Potential exhibitors and attendees are invited to fax the following
information to 1-405-743-3426: 
  Name
  Company name
  Address
  Phone number
  Fax number
  E-mail address 

Feel free to call 1-800-829-3400 or e-mail requests to TeleConXIV@aol.com.

Please specify you saw the info on-line and if you want exhibition or
attendee information.

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

Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 08:45:19 MST
From: Daryl R. Gibson <DRG@du1.byu.edu>
Subject: Last Laugh! Signs You Have a Bad Long Distance Company


Forwarded FYI to TELECOM Digest:

Date sent:      Thu, 19 May 1994 21:31:29 -0700
From:           Bob Lennard <blennard@netcom.com>
Subject:        David Letterman's Top Ten List for 05/19/94
To:             Multiple recipients of list TOP-TEN <TOP-TEN@TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU>
Send reply to:  Late Show Top Ten List mailing list <TOP-TEN@TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU>

-----> Thursday, May 19, 1994 <-----

Signs You Have A Bad Long Distance Company

10.  All calls are $2 for the first min., $94 each additional min.
 9.  Operator makes you describe what you're wearing;
 8.  Their so-called "dial tone" is just a guy with a kazoo;
 7.  You can only place long distance calls during an electrical storm;
 6.  They bill you for calls made by some guy named Pepe, and when you
     complain they say, "Whatsa problem, man, you no like Pepe?";
 5.  Whenever you call their office, you hear gunfire;
 4.  For some reason, your phone doesn't work unless you're wearing 3-D
     glasses;
 3.  Everyone you talk to sounds like the guy at the drive-thru window
     at McDonald's;
 2.  No matter what number you dial you always get Richard Simmons;
 1.  Their slogan is:  "Reach out and touch yourself".

This Late Show with David Letterman Top Ten list copyright 1994 World Wide
Pants. Lists are contributed by Bob Lennard and Rick Nebel. 

To subscribe or unsubscribe to the list send your request to:
listserv@tamvm1.tamu.edu. In the BODY of your message put:  
    subscribe top-ten first last                            
Replace first and last with your name. To unsubscribe, put: 
    signoff top-ten                                         

If you have any questions or comments send them to top-ten@tamvm1.tamu.edu

        -----------

Forwarded to TELECOM Digest by:

       (801)378- 2950   (801)489-6348
      drg@du1.byu.edu   71171.2036@compuserve.com

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #241
******************************

