TELECOM Digest Fri, 7 Jan 94 13:23:00 CST Volume 14 : Issue 17 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: SW-56 and ISDN Questions (Bruce Taylor) Re: SW-56 and ISDN Questions (Bill Halverson) Re: Best Remote Software? (Andy McKinsey) Re: California ANI Question (Steve Forrette) Re: California ANI Question (Jon Edelson) Re: Landlines Pay Airtime To Call Some Cellular Phones (Ronald Oakes) Re: Sucharge for Tone Dialing to be Dropped (Eric De Mund) Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous (Mark Crispin) Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous (A. Padgett Peterson) Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous (Alan Boritz) Re: Merlin Question (Steve Cogorno) Re: How are VCR Plus+ Numbers Generated (Kriston Rehberg) Re: Caller ID/911 Seattle and Article Recommendation (Alan Dahl) Re: Sprint (Dvorak) Modem Offer - Not Again! (Chris Ambler) Re: Sprint (Dvorak) Modem Offer - Not Again! (Alan T. Furman) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 11:30:58 EST From: Bruce Taylor Subject: Re: SW-56 and ISDN Questions Dear Lenny, You questions are so broad that it would be nearly impossible to answer with any accuracy. But, since this is Usenet, I'll try :-) > 1. Which countries/provinces have SW-56 service and are ISDN capable? 1: Answer depends on which long distance carrier (IXC) that you use to get to the countries. In Europe, most countries are apparently ISDN capable. Getting there, on the other hand ... > 2. Here in the US what cities have been converted to ISDN, and who are > still operating at SW-56? 2: Again, depends on the local exchange carrier, and the IXC as well. Most switched that are fully digital are ISDN capable. The LEC may not have a tariff for it, though. This is not an exclusive choice, though. Pittsburgh has both ISDN and SW56 services available. > 3. If you know, who are their carriers? 3: Argh -- whose carriers? Cities? Not relevant. There are LEC's and IXC's. In theory, any IXC can carry ISDN to any LEC. Depends greatly on which combination you're talking about. May I suggest: Talking with your college telecom group, your LEC (a 'Bell' company), and your IXCs (AT&T, MCI, Sprint, LCI, Wiltel, etc.). They could help you in greater detail. Best wishes for your research, Bruce Taylor (blt@cmu.edu) (412) 268-6249 New Projects Coordinator, Telecommunications, Carnegie Mellon University ------------------------------ From: wjhalv1@pacbell.com Subject: Re: SW-56 and ISDN Questions Date: 6 Jan 94 18:56:44 GMT Organization: Pacific * Bell In article , writes: > Sirs: I'm a tech with Brown University in Providence RI. My question > is basic, yet important to our work here at Brown, perhaps you may be > able to give me some direction to obtain the answers. > 1. Which countries/provinces have SW-56 service and are ISDN capable? Within the USA, these two services are considered to be "complementary", in the sense they can coexist within a network. > 2. Here in the US what cities have been converted to ISDN, and who are > still operating at SW-56? In California, Pacific Bell is offering both ISDN and SW-56. Since the service is hardware dependent, the prefix you get from the phone company will determine whether the switch you receive dialtone from provides either or both service. Here is an 800 number you can call to find out what is availble in our service territory: 800-995-0346 You need a touch-tone phone. You will be able to find out what kind of service is available based on the NPANXX combination you enter. Hope this helps!! Bill Halverson Pacific Bell ------------------------------ From: aam@crl.com (Andy McKinsey) Subject: Re: Best Remote Software? Date: 6 Jan 1994 10:14:03 -0800 Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [login: guest] Joseph Ferguson (JOEJR1@delphi.com) wrote: > I need a reliable remote software program that will actually run > Windows. I use an Intel 400 at home and at work. Haven't had any luck > trying PcTools Commute. Do any of these remote programs run Windows? > Thanks for any suggestions. Try Reachout software from Ocean Isle software. 407/770-4777 Vero Beach, FL. You can run windows over a dial up link or on a network. Andy ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: California ANI Question Date: 6 Jan 1994 19:29:28 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc. Reply-To: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) In , davidj@rahul.net (David Josephson) writes: > In stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes: >> ANI is not illegal in California. As the Digest Editor noted, with >> very few exceptions, if you can call an 800 number, the recipient can > The CPUC tariff is the law. CPUC denied Pacific Bell's tariff filing > that would have offered CNID. Only that which is tariffed is > permissible. What does the tariff filing on Caller ID have to do with 800 ANI? (answer: nothing!) 800 ANI for inter-state calls is tariffed by the FCC for all three of the Big Three IXC's. Since 800 ANI is tariffed, it is permissable. > I wonder if the per-number (56# or whatever it was?) CNID blocking > from here would block a INWATS ANI/CNID? Not unless Caller ID blocking prevents you from making a 1+ long distance call (which it doesn't). There is no way to block 800 ANI short of not calling the number. Even the traditional methods of blocking Caller ID do not work: a) you can't call an 800 number by using a calling card; b) calling through the Operator doesn't block your number (on AT&T, operator assisted 800 calls still deliver the correct ANI to the recipient, and other carriers do not have operator assisted 800 calls); or c) calling over non-SS7 facilities, as SS7 is not required to support 800 ANI. This is why it works for 99.5% of all calls. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: winnie@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Jon Edelson) Subject: Re: California ANI Question Organization: Princeton University Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 15:10:16 GMT In article stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes: > And there is blocking available -- if callers choose not to have me or > my customers pay for their telephone calls (which is what they are > doing when they call an 800 number), we will never get their number. > I guess this is a form of per-call blocking :-) (I suppose you could > even have per-line 800 ANI blocking if you got a toll restrictor and > programmed it to block 800 numbers :-)) Yea! Another service that the telephone company can offer to make money. 800 number ANI blocking. For a small monthly fee, your 800 calls will go through, but _you_ will have to pay for them. In exchange for actually paying for the service, your ANI will not be transmitted. The various carriers charge more per call, and split the additional profit :-) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But they do this already. You simply dial the regular ten digit number for the person or company; you pay for the call; everyone is happy. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 14:59:37 CST From: oakes@wildebeest.cig.mot.com (Ronald Oakes) Subject: Re: Landlines Pay Airtime To Call Some Cellular Phones Organization: Motorola Cellular Infrastructure Group In article John Levine writes: >> Charging the land-line caller to a cellular number makes >> perfect sense to me. > In the abstract, it makes some sense. On the other hand, surcharged > numbers are a pain for callers, local telcos, and long distance > carriers since the prices tend to be mysterious and the bills at the > end of the month often an unpleasant surprise. How long do you think > it will take for someone to complain to US West "nobody told me that a > call to 1-579 cost 65 cents* a minute"? If it's as much as two days > after the first bill is sent, I'll be surprised. The day after that, > people will demand 579 blocking, like 900 and 976 blocking. There already is blocking for 1-579, and 1-976 blocking, at least for people familiar with using telephones in Colorado, New Mexico and other "civilized" parts of the country. In these parts of the country -- assuming they are not pressured to change -- dialing a "1" before a seven digit number, or after conversion the local area code, is a clear and deliberate indication that the call is toll. If you do not know that, then you simply will receive a polite "please dial 1" or "please dial 1 303" message when you attempt the call. This simple solution removes many of the problems with charge calls that become present when you allow seven digit toll calling. This would have prevented -- or at least lessened -- the New York pager scam, and can reduce the problems with 976 numbers. And for cellular services, unlike 900 and 976 like numbers, the charge will probably be a flat rate, published in the phone book, or available from the operator upon request. Ronald B. Oakes ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 13:50:44 PST From: Eric De Mund Subject: Re: Sucharge for Tone Dialing to be Dropped Reply-To: Eric De Mund Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Genome Computing Group People, Dave Niebuhr in TELECOM Digest V14 #15: > NYTel, as part of a multi-million dollar rate rollback has been > ordered to reduce the cost of touch-tone dialing from $1.35 to $.50 > per month which is still not enough. Given that backwards state of affairs, maybe my dad *is* telling me the truth when he says that he can't even *get* touch-tone service at his home in central Nassau County (Westbury), Long Island, New York, telephone number (516) 333-xxxx. Incredible. Can anyone confirm this? Eric De Mund ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 13:44:47 PST From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous I just saw in an electronics toy catalog (Danmark or one of those) a Caller ID box that implements something like Anonymous Call Rejection as its own feature. If you enable it, it automatically answers the call and plays a refusal message, than hangs up. What I see as different between this box and the telco's feature: 1) You don't have to beg the ACLU for this feature, after having begged them for CNID. 2) No monthly charge beyond the CNID. 3) You need to wire the box in series with all your extensions, otherwise you won't get the ring suppression on the other ones. 4) I doubt that it interacts well with Call Waiting. 5) The ability to set the refusal message (I don't know if this particular box has it, but doubtless others will). Big win. So, there are interesting tradeoffs. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Plus which, the call *supervises*, and the scorned calling party gets to pay for a thirty second message telling him his call is unwanted. :) Some say that condition should be the default on this sort of thing, but at least when the telcos do it they can optionally toggle it either way. I am reminded of this guy who had a phone line installed in a remote area which he used only occassionally. The number was never given out, and he used it maybe once a week for a call or two, but he wanted a phone available when he needed it. The first thing he noticed following installation was how many wrong numbers this line was getting; like three or four a day from all sorts of people who were looking for someone or something else -- there was no set pattern to the wrong numbers. He knew for a fact no one would ever call *him* on that line because he never gave to the number to anyone for any reason. His solution was to put a real cheap answering machine on the line with an outgoing message which said, "You have reached a wrong number. For your convenience, this line is answered 24 hours per day by this recording. The person or company you are seeking is not at this number. Because of your carelessness in dialing, you have been charged for this call. Goodbye." He later said the funny part was how many people paid absolutely no attention and at the tone went ahead and recorded their airline reservations, questions for customer service, requests for songs to be played on the radio, etc. A few did actually listen and take note of the message; many of those chose to respond with anonymous (of course) obscene incoming messages, some made sounds into the phone which resembled belching or passing of 'gas', a couple were gales of hysterical laughter, etc. He finally changed his outgoing message on that line referring to it as the "Telephone Company Wrong Number Respository". ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 16:45:55 -0500 From: padgett@tccslr.dnet.mmc.com (A. Padgett Peterson) Subject: Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous > Does anyone actually have Anonymous Call Rejection in service now? Is > it useful? It impresses me as one of those features which you get for > about a week, then get rid of because it's utterly worthless. I can see a very valid use -- computer modem lines. On my dial-ups I use Caller-ID to validate the caller before permitting connections. If the CNID is blocked, I just do not answer the phone but the line is still occupied until the caller hangs up. Even if I did not have CNID, I doubt that many people would be willing to use a Demon Dialer if they could not block CNID since they would not *know* if I were logging. It certainly would put a crimp in annoyance calls that rely on anomynity. Warmly, Padgett ------------------------------ Subject: Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous From: drharry!aboritz@uunet.UU.NET (Alan Boritz) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 94 06:42:56 EST Organization: Harry's Place BBS - Mahwah NJ - +1 201 934 0861 johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) writes: > Does anyone actually have Anonymous Call Rejection in service now? I've had the function working for a good part of a year, but with the Colonial Data Technologies "Block The Blocker" CNID box. Works like a charm. ;) NJ Bell sent out a flyer on 1/1/94 to all of their CNID customers announcing CNID privacy block (*67) and anonymous call rejection (*77). However, it also added that the call rejection feature would not be available in some areas for a while. > It impresses me as one of those features which you get for > about a week, then get rid of because it's utterly worthless. Perhaps > I'm suffering from a failure of imagination, but I find it difficult > to understand the mindset of people who are too scared to answer the > phone if they don't know in advance who the call is from. Then you probably don't receive a lot of calls from telemarketing idiots and nosy scam artists. We go through periods at work when we're inundated with those, and calls from telemarketing machines (our exchanges are low numbers in the 201 area). Telemarketing calls are an enormous time-waster, and more than half of the investment scam callers are pushy and rude. Invade my privacy at home with a useless sales pitch AND hide your CNID from me and I'll redefine the word "rude" for you. ;) If you're hiding your identity from me (privacy block), then I don't want to talk to you. My time is worth more than yours (anonymous caller, that is) and I don't appreciate it being wasted. > People who are concerned about annoyance callers should consider Call > Block, which lets you enter a list of numbers from which you won't > receive calls. That Class feature only handles ten numbers, maximum (and can handle privacy-blocked numbers), and has to be manually programmed. That's not a solution, except for the most obnoxious and uninventive abusive callers (those who can't figure out that they could pick up ANOTHER un-blocked phone to call you). aboritz%drharry@uunet.uu.net or uunet!drharry!aboritz Harry's Place BBS (drharry.UUCP) - Mahwah NJ USA - +1-201-934-0861 ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: Merlin Question Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 14:13:36 PST Said by: Vince Dugar > Why does the Merlin system charge users so much (I forget now, but > it's a lot) to buy a special modem adapter? Is there a cheaper > solution? What about using an acoustic modem? (only want it for > CompuServe mail handling, so low baud would be OK) Sure -- instead of buying a BTMI or Data Adapter, you can wire your modem straight into the demarc point (bypass the Merlin altogether). Of course, this will prevent you from using Merlin Features, but if you want to play you gotta pay :-) Steve cogorno@netcom.com #608 Merrill * 200 McLaughlin Drive * Santa Cruz, CA 95064-1015 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: How are VCR Plus+ Numbers Generated Reply-To: krehberg@vnet.IBM.COM Date: Thu, 06 Jan 94 17:51:16 EST From: V2ENA81%OWEGO@zeta.eecs.nwu.edu In dk@crl.com's message of 5 Jan 1994 16:40:08 -0800 was written: > Dan Cromer (19016007@SBACVM.SBAC.EDU) wrote: >> remotes, generated. I bought a new VCR for my folks in Lakeland, FL, >> to make it easy for them to set up the VCR for recording, but the VCR >> Plus+ codes aren't listed in their newspaper. I'd like to be able to > I could have sworn that Toshiba or possibly Mitsui has a remote > control device which has thumbwheel switches for day of week, date, > time, and channel number, so that a person can read across the front > of the unit, "Monday - 7th - 7:00 to 7:30 - pm - channel 4" and be > done with the confusion. Has anyone seen one of these? Yah, modern Panasonic VCR's with VCR/Plus has a thumwheel on the remote control which lets you cycle through the days. It also has a meager explanation of VCR/Plus and lets you graphically program the channel positions into the VCR so that it will automatically know which channel is which. It had some kind of cross-reference listing on it as to which channels go where so that the codes might actually work for your local cable system. Prevue Guide (the TV-Guide channel that allows the cable system to automatically select the preview commercials based on your area's channels) also provides VCR plus on almost all the programs in the commercial section, and at least some of them in the program listing section. Pretty cool, if you ask me. But I'm not among those millions of people who can't program something as simple as a VCR. Come to think of it, just setting up this Panasonic VCR for VCR/Plus would give this kind of person a coronary. Kris ------------------------------ From: alan.dahl@mccaw.com (Alan Dahl) Subject: Re: Caller ID/911 Seattle and Article Recommendation Date: 6 Jan 1994 23:28:49 GMT Organization: McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc. In article stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes: > In , hedlund@reed.edu (M. Hedlund) writes: >> I also saw a news piece about 911 technology and cellular phones, >> saying that Caller-ID/Signalling System Seven had speeded response to >> home calls (as discussed) but that only _some_ systems could ID >> cellular phones -- Seattle was mentioned as considering cellular- >> Caller ID to improve 911. Apologies if this overlaps a thread I >> missed, but anyone in Seattle with info? > I have cellular accounts with both of the Seattle carriers: US West > Cellular and Cellular One. At least when calling 800 numbers, the US > West Cellular system will report my actual cellular number as the ANI, > whereas Cellular One reports a non-dialable number that's common on > all subscribers. Since 911 systems are often implemented using > operator-service trunks, I would imagine that the 'correct ANI' > feature of the US West system would also work with 911, although I > don't have any specific knowledge that this is the case. As far as > Cellular One goes, they could implement 911 ANI with some sort of > special data line to the PSAP, without converting to full ANI for all > outbound calls. One benefit of the US West Cellular ANI situation is > that it allows me to select any IXC that's generally available via > Equal Access as my default carrier for the cellular phone. The problem, of course, with using ANI with cellular numbers for enhanced-911 is that it only gives the 911 people some of the information they need. It will give them your cell number (assuming that the ANI works correctly) so they can try calling back if the number is disconnected but there is no way for them to translate this number into a location since the cellular phone could be anywhere. With normal 911 the phone number is translated to a street address, and since houses (with the possible exception of mudslides in LA :-) rarely move, the 911 operator (and thus the police/fire department/whatever) can be relatively sure that that's where you're calling from so that help can be dispatched to the right address if you are unable to communicate. With a cellular phone the information that is _really_ needed is the cell site that the phone is communicating with. This could, in turn, be translated to a street address that would at least get the police to within a thousand feet or so of your location in the event you are cut off, don't know where you are or are unable to communicate. You can imagine the frustration of a 911 operator talking to a child over a cell phone (say, after a car accident) where the child may be unable to explain where the car is and the 911 operator helpless to narrow down the location at all without help from the cellular provider (and a lot of valuable time lost). Coming up with a way to communicate cell site address to the 911 operator is non-trivial and will probably take a fair amount of effort to implement. Since I don't work on that side of the company I'll let someone else explain the technological challenges. I understand (from what I read in the papers, I don't know anything even remotely official) that McCaw is committed to delivering this functionality within the next couple of years. Alan Dahl Axys Development Team alan.dahl@mccaw.com McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc. Phone: (206) 803-4496 P.O. Box 97060 Fax: (206) 803-4901 Kirkland, WA 98083-9760 ------------------------------ From: cambler@cymbal.aix.calpoly.edu (Chris Ambler - Fubar) Subject: Re: Sprint (Dvorak) Modem Offer - Not Again! Organization: The Phishtank Date: Fri, 07 Jan 1994 02:01:44 GMT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well now, that's very gracious and generous > of you to agree to take that extra modem off his hands. :) Meanwhile, > back in California, I am wondering what is going on with the lawsuit against > Sprint the guys were starting based on alleged misrepresentations of the > product being shipped, etc. Can anyone bring us up to date on that side > of it? PAT] Certainly! I have received from Sprint a letter from their agent here in California informing me that they are the proper people to serve. The papers have been made out accordingly. I am in the process of receiving legal advice on my claim, and should be filing this month. I'm being very careful about what I'm doing so as to not make any mistakes. I want this to be as "fair" a case as possible, at least from my end. And, since I know that Sprint reads this group (since they were able to quote me my own words on the phone from a post here), a hearty hello to them as well, expect me to file shortly. This has been a learning experience for me if nothing else, I've come to understand how the law works in these cases, and believe I have a very strong case. I look forward to its resolution. Meanwhile, the modems sit, sealed and unopened, in a cool dry safe place, awaiting their day in court :-) Pat, might I ask you the easiest way for me to scan the archives for all messages posted on this subject? I have been advised that I should have them all handy, since Sprint will most likely have the same. Christopher(); // All original text is strictly the opinion of the poster Christopher J. Ambler, Author, FSUUCP 1.42, FSVMP 1.0, chris@toys.fubarsys.com Ozric Tentacles Mailing List: ozric-request@toys.fubarsys.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you get the index to subjects and authors in the Digest for volume 13 from the Telecom Archives, use the Unix command 'grep' to search for the words 'Sprint' and 'modem' in the same subject line. If you use the Telecom Archives Email Information Service, one of the commands available to you is SEARCH and you would search for those same keywords. The results would be returned by email and you would then order the issues of the Digest referenced in the index. As a practical matter however, the majority of the discussion went on during September through November, and you could just pull all the back issues from that period and scan the indexes given at the start of each issue (if you get the Digest format rather than c.d.t.). Also, are you *sure* those modems are sitting in their original unopened boxes in a cool, dry place? Have you fellows been playing with your new toys? I am reminded of this dude twenty years ago who used to buy CB radios from Radio Shack at a time when CB's were easily modified to install an additional 250 channels and with luck oscillate clear up in ten meters. He'd buy the radios and modify them, then resell them to folks. Naturally, once in awhile there'd be an accident. He'd mess up something, ie, the radio would blow up. In that case, he'd scrap all the internals he wanted -- the chips, etc -- for spares to use elsewhere and he would *carefully* put the unit back together otherwise, *carefully* repackage the remains and take it back to Radio Shack to complain the unit was defective. Now the RS clerks didn't pay any attention; they'd just swap him out and send the 'defective' unit back through the system to their regional center. Over time the 'defective' CB would find its way back to the factory in Korea (Hong Kong? China?) where it was made. Just imagine the scene: the Chinese factory workers open the radio and look inside. As they look closer, they squint their eyes and proclaim, "Holy $%^%# ... look at this! No master crystal, no trim-pots, no final ... how did this thing pass quality control and get out of here to start with!" ... :). PAT] ------------------------------ From: atfurman@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Sprint (Dvorak) Modem Offer - Not Again! Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 21:17:45 PST > I was one of those who, a few months ago, ordered Sprint LD service > while under the impression that I would get *one* external 9600 baud > *data* modem with FAX. After speaking with the post-offer Sprint > staff, I accepted the internal 2400 baud data and 9600 baud fax modem. > Now the problem -- I just got a second modem in the mail! Exactly the > same as the first. All I have is an 818 area code phone number for > Best Data, so I don't want to call them back; it came UPS, so I can't > just throw it in the mail with REFUSED scribbled all over it. I doubt > the Sprint rep's will be able to help. Now what? Look at it this way: You now have a total of 4800 bits/sec of data bandwidth. It is not yet 9600, but you are halfway there. Alan Furman [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What's he supposed to do, wire them in parallel somehow and process the data through each at twice the speed or something? Ha ha ha ... :) Poor Sprint ... I'll bet they cuss everytime they see this thread come back to life here. I know they rue the day some brainy person in their marketing department ever thought up the promotion. What was that nice lady's name who went to all the trouble of calling each person trying to get it straightened out? And now, just when they thought the long nightmare was over ... PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #17 *****************************