TELECOM Digest     Mon, 20 Feb 95 18:09:00 CST    Volume 15 : Issue
108

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. 
Townson

    Copy of Memo to AT&T re: 500/True Connections (John Shelton)
    March 7 Bellcore Meeting in DC (Judith Oppenheimer)
    SL-100 Administration (Jay Borden)
    Mitnick Chain of Events (Steve Cogorno)
    500 Service in Canada (Evan Champion)
    Canadian "Framework" Proceeding (Dave Leibold)
    New RITIM Working Papers (Leslie Smith)
    Bell Canada Stumped on 500 Service (Scott A. Montague)
    Business vs. Residential Rates (Richard Palmer)
    National Strategies for Telecom Education? (Mikko Usvalehto)
    Help! - Vertex, DID or ISDN For my Phone Services (Jian Yuan Peng)
    Cellular Airtime Resellers (Bill Engel)
    Wanted: Used AT&T Business Telephone Systems (Alex Capo)

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

Subscriptions are available 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: 500-677-1616
                        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. A suggested donation of twenty dollars 
per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

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: John Shelton <jshelton@parcplace.com>
Subject: Copy of Memo to AT&T re: 500/True Connections
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 9:48:50 PDT


[Copy of memo sent to AT&T re problems]

I would like to report some problems with my AT&T True Connections
service, and offer some suggestions for feature enhancements. Overall,
I find this service to be a really good idea; I hope it will
eventually have all the bugs worked out.

Current problems:

Voice quality isn't as good as standard AT&T calls. I notice a
distinct drop in volume as I am connected to the True Connections
answering unit.

Using the call sequencing feature, I cannot get consistent results
regarding the number of rings.  As a caller, I hear "ringing"
immediately when each sequence number is tried. But at the remote end,
the telephone may not start ringing for several seconds. This is
particularly a problem with my cellular telephone, which may take
varying lengths of time to start ringing, depending on whether I am in
my home area or not.  I currently have my sequencing set to a small
enough number of rings so that my office voice mail does not answer
(so I can go sequence to the next number), but that results in my
cellular phone ringing only once, which isn't always enough time to
answer it.  I think the only practical solution will be for us to be
able to program a different number of rings with each sequence number.

AT&T is returning supervision on all 0+500 calls, even when used to
modify forwarding. I think AT&T should be returning supervision only
on 0+500 calls when they connect to voice mail or are used to dial
home (or another number). Purely administrative calls should not
return supervision.

My voice mailbox has a different mailbox number and password than my
500 number itself.  This means I have to remember four different
numbers to retrieve my voice mail. I would appreciate being able to
get voicemail by just entering my 0+500 number and master PIN, then
following the menu.

Beeper notification isn't working yet, which makes voice mail somewhat
awkward. When will this service be working?

Feature requests:

I would like to ask for the following features to be considered:

Allow designation of special numbers the way *H (home) can be
designated. For example: *C (cellular) *O (office) *P (pager) This
would speed up both entry of sequence lists, and the reading back of
sequence lists.

Allow me to have a voice greeting (ten seconds) played as soon as a
caller rings my number. I could say something like: "Hi, this is John.
Please wait for connection to my current phone; if there is no answer,
I'll be back on to take a message."

Allow callers direct access to beeper service.  Callers could press a
key to stop ringing and connect directly to my beeper service.

When a sequence number is busy, offer the caller a choice of trying
the next number, going direct to voice mail, or trying again later.

To make TrueConnections truly useful in the future, local calling
should become very inexpensive. Right now, my local callers are
reluctant to call my 500 number instead of a local number, because of
the cost.  With SS7, it would be possible for AT&T to direct the local
phone company to re-route the call locally, rather than tying up AT&T
circuits. As a customer, I'd be happy to pay a nominal fee (10 cents?)
for such a re-routing, to save my caller per-minute charges. Since
AT&T switching would be tied up for only a few seconds, the cost to
AT&T would be minimal.  Expanding TrueConnections in this way should
allow many more customers to consider the service.

                         =====================

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Although I can understand how some of 
you
feel about the 0-500 supervision issue, I have to take exception. Why
should instructing a computer where to send your calls be any 
different
than instructing your secretary or a co-worker where to send them? If
you were using the method which has worked well for many years of 
calling
your office and saying to the receptionist, "I will be over at client 
X
for a couple of hours if anyone calls ...", would you object to paying 
for
the call to your receptionist/secretary to give those instructions? In
the case of 500 service, you are using AT&T as your 
receptionist/secretary/
message taker. Should AT&T and the interim telcos/celcos have to work 
for
free?  Your secretary does not work for free. I could understand 
having
no supervision until a valid pin number was entered or a calling card
number; but do you really think you should get the entire 
administrative
process for free?  PAT]

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

From: producer@pipeline.com (Judith Oppenheimer)
Subject: March 7 Bellcore Meeting in DC
Date: 20 Feb 1995 12:55:46 -0500
Organization: Interactive CallBrand(TM)


March 7 at Bellcore in Washington DC, 2101 L St. NW, 6th floor. 

 Ad Hoc State Department group on Numbering Issues. 

Starts at 9 am.  

Anyone can attend.

All 800 number users are urged to attend, and be vocal!  

Protect your 800 numbers!  International Freephone is on the agenda. 
 Keep an ear/eye open for 888 as well -

If *your* business were 1 800 FLOWERS, would you want 011 800 FLOWERS
(proposed International Freephone) and 1 888 FLOWERS (proposed new
add-on toll-free exchange) alienating and confusing *your* customers,
and running up your telecom bills with wrong calls that generate no
sales?  Protect your advertising and branding investments in your 800
numbers.  Protect your brands and trademarks.

Protect your business interests.  If you don't, no one will.


J. Oppenheimer, Producer@Pipeline.com   Interactive CallBrand(TM)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The only thing is, the telephone-using
*public* has to be to some extent responsible for knowing what and
where they are dialing. {Chicago Tribune} columnist Mike Royko has
complained several times in the past about how his internal centrex
number at the newspaper is the same as a very commonly used number by
AT&T for customer service, minus the 1-800 on the front. Idiots galore
trying to complain to AT&T about something or other -- after all these
years -- still do not understand they must dial 1-800 first, so if 
they
are in area 312 they get his private unlisted centrex number instead. 
And
you know what he wants? He wants AT&T to change *their number* -- so
that *he* won't get their calls. How do you accomodate idiots and
fools short of stopping the world and letting everyone get off?

Do you propose that when the 800 number supply is exhausted we just
quit having any more? Do you propose that international commerce and
trade be handicapped by having no uniform way to dial around the world
with the charges reversed to the called party automatically?  You use
FLOWERS as an example, and apparently would restrict the use of 356-
9377
where any other 'toll-free' numbering scheme is concerned because the
Americans got it first and want to protect their brand name. That is 
all
well and good, but 1-800-FLOWERS is not the same as 011-800-FLOWERS or 
1-888-FLOWERS. Needless to say, its not the same as any local area 
code
plus 356-9377, and yet day after day that number gets calls for 
FLOWERS
by people who forgot the 1-800. There is a practical limit to how much
can be done to idiot-proof the phone network. You say its okay to have
things like 011-800 and 1-888 as long as the existing American 800 
users
can have their numbers grandfathered, or held out of use under the new
codes?  Well that would put us right back where we are now, with an
increasingly limited supply of available numbers. Or are you 
suggesting
that only the 'big' 800 users get that protection, and the rest of us
with 800 numbers can live with the nuisance that the corporate clients
you represent don't wish to tolerate, i.e. 'customer confusion' and 
having to pay for calls which generated no business, etc?   

This reminds me of the airline a few years ago which misprinted its 
schedule book -- thousands of copies distributed -- and gave out the
number of some hapless individual in error instead. When he called to
complain, they told him to change *his* phone number. When they later
found out he was getting rather rude with persistent callers who kept
telling him he was a liar and that they *knew* they had reached the
airline, then the airline tried to sue him for force him to change his
number so that their customers would not be confused. Never once did
it occur to them to correct their own error and reprint their booklet.

You may not recall, but the same kind of arguments you are presenting
here came up twenty or more years ago as AT&T began major expansions 
of
800 service as it was configured back then. Relatively few companies 
had 800 service in the early 1970's, and those who did often times had
words made out of the four digit suffixes. Then AT&T opened up a bunch
of new prefixes and changed the configuration on some already being 
used
and suddenly the same words showed up attached to other 800 prefixes
in other parts of the country. "If I have 800-xxx-FOOD you can't let
him have 800-yyy-FOOD; too many people will get us confused." That's
life, sorry. You need to educate your customers *how* to place the
call, what more can I say?     PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 13:19:36 -0500
From: jborden@world.std.com (Jay Borden)
Subject: SL-100 Administration


Does anyone have experience with software used to perform 
administration 
of an SL-100?  What does Northern provide in this area?  Are there
third party apps?  I'm looking at basic add/move/change function
support, and whatever else is available.

Please mail me directly with your responses.  If there's sufficient 
interest, I'll summarize and repost for the group.


Thanks,

jay b

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

From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno)
Subject: Mitnick Chain of Events
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 10:19:50 PST


I thought this would be of interest to the group.


Steve   cogorno@netcom.com

                    NETCOM HELPS PROTECT THE INTERNET

- A Letter from CEO Bob Rieger to Our Customers -

I know many of you are interested in NETCOM's involvement with the
arrest of Kevin Mitnick, and how this may impact you, if at all, as a
NETCOM subscriber.  First, let me supply a chronology of events:

1. In a routine security check, NETCOM discovered a misappropriated 
file.
As a result, we began an investigation to trace what appeared to be a
security breach.

2. At about the same time, the WELL (a small Sausalito-based on-line
provider) was investigating an account with an unexpectedly large
amount of disk usage. In the course of this investigation, they
discovered suspicious material which included items believed illicitly
obtained from well-known network security expert Tsutomu Shimomura's
computer.  Mr. Shimomura performed network monitoring at the WELL, and
determined that the account was being accessed from a number of sites,
including NETCOM.

3. The WELL contacted NETCOM for assistance in tracking the source of
the security breach.

4. A day or two later, the FBI contacted NETCOM and requested NETCOM's
active involvement in the broadening investigation of the suspicious
activities at the WELL.

5. NETCOM caucused with representatives of the WELL, the FBI, the U.S.
Attorney's Office, Mr. Shimomura, and Julia Menapace (an independent
computer consultant and associate of Mr. Shimomura).

6. Following the conversation, it was decided that the best vantage 
point
for further tracking of these activities was NETCOM's Network 
Operations
Center.

7. NETCOM operations staff joined their efforts with Mr. Shimomura and
his associates to trace the suspect intrusions to a particular 
telephone
modem in NETCOM's Raleigh, N.C. site.

8. At that point, the U.S. Justice Department subpoenaed the local
telephone carrier for records of dial-ins at specific times to this
modem. It became apparent that the telephone company's switch
equipment had been compromised, so that these records could not be
obtained.  However, the Justice Department found another method for
making a match.

9. With this information, the Justice Department knew the approximate
location of the originating call.

10. Mr. Shimomura flew to Raleigh and used cellular tracking equipment
to locate the apartment building the calls were coming from. 
Eventually, 
the calls were traced to an individual apartment, and Mr.  Mitnick was
arrested.

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

Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 18:59:06 +0000 
From: evan champion <evanc@bnr.ca>
Subject: 500 Service in Canada 
Organization: Bell Northern Research 


Is 500 service beeing offered by Bell Canada yet (or will it be
offered in the future), and what costs should I expect for making use
of 500 service if and when it is available here?


Thanks!

Evan

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

Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 22:57:50 EST
From: Dave Leibold <dleibold@gvc.com>
Subject: Canadian "Framework" Proceeding


[from Bell News, 6 Feb 1995 - content is Bell Canada's]

Framework proceeding gets underway

Carrying many of the same principles underlying our recent corporate
reorganization forward into the regulatory arena, Bell and other
members of the Stentor alliance filed evidence with the CRTC in
support of the split rate base approach to regulation, on January 31.

Splitting the rate base, an important element of the CRTC's regulatory
review decision issued last September, means assigning the company's
costs and revenues to two distinct segments of our business - 
competitive 
and utility - using the CRTC-approved Phase III costing methodology.

On the utility side, the CRTC would continue to regulate under the 
traditional rate base, rate of return regulation until January 1998 
(when 
price caps are scheduled to be introduced).

On the competitive side, we sink or swim on our own. Competitive areas
of our business will no longer be part of the regulated rate base, and
there will be no predetermined level of profitability associated with
competitive service revenues.

Unlike the other telephone companies, Bell did not include a financial
forecast for 1995 as part of this filing, but anticipates doing so by
March 20. The company's new management team is in the process of
establishing a specific forecast for 1995 as part of a three-year
transition plan.



The January filing was the initial step in preparation for a public
hearing to be held beginning May 8, in Hull, Quebec.

The proceeding will also address such issues as contribution, rate
rebalancing, and investment in the Beacon Initiative, as well as 
Canada/
U.S. cost comparisons in the delivery of long distance services.

The public hearing is expected to last about eight weeks.

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

David Leibold -+- dleibold@gvc.com -+- aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca

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

Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 12:38:24 CST
From: leslie_smith@wiltel.com
Subject: New RITIM Working Papers


Dear TELECOM Digest,

 WilTel is pleased to announce the addition of new RITIM working 
pages to our Telecom Library.  We thought that some of your readers 
might 
also enjoy seeing what the researchers at RITIM are finding.  Thanks 
for 
allowing us to share with you and your readers.


Leslie Smith

 
 RITIM's New Working Papers
 URL:   http://www.wiltel.com/ritim/ritim.html

 WilTel is pleased to announce that The Research Institute for
Telecommunications and Information Marketing (RITIM) has recently
released new working papers now available on the Internet via WilTel.
The new RITIM working papers cover aspects of marketing research that
shed light on some of the behaviors, organizations, and strategies of
the telecommunications and information technology industries.  The
RITIM working papers also present results of case studies, conceptual
work, reviews, and research projects undertaken by researchers
interested in telecommunications and other information-related
industries.  RITIM working papers provide convenient, timely, and free
access to the valuable research completed by RITIM sponsored
researchers.

 Topics of the newly released RITIM working papers include:

  - The Marketing Challenge:  When services compete  
    with products

  - Acceptance of New Information and Communication  
    Services:  A strange framework

  - Impact of Organizational Size, Number of Sites, and  
    Line Business on Telecommunications

  - The Changing Information Business:  Towards  
    content-based competition

 RITIM's goal is to be the premier academic research center
dealing with the different markets, organizations, behaviors, and
strategies of the evolving telecommunications and information
technology industries.  If you would like to learn more about the
exciting research RITIM has supported, you can access the RITIM papers
at URL: http://www.wiltel.com/ritim/ritim. The RITIM working papers
are the property of RITIM.  WilTel is proud to provide the World Wide
Web interface that gives interested readers insight into the
happenings at RITIM .

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

From: 4sam3@qlink.queensu.ca (Montague Scott A)
Subject: Bell Canada Stumped on 500 Service
Date: 10 Feb 1995 23:44:18 GMT
Organization: Queen's University, Kingston


Well, it was bound to happen. What was, in myu opinion the best phone
company in North America, has let me down.  The problem?  Bell Canada 
has 
never heard of 500 service.  A quick call to Pat's number using both 1- 
and 0- gave me a "bad number" message.  So, I got online with a Bell 
Canada operator, and she told me "sorry, I don't know of the 500 area 
code".  I explained what the service was, and she said that she'd be 
glad 
to pass me on to the business office.  I subsequently talked to Terry 
at 
the business office, and explained the deal.  He called (while I 
waited) 
the product lines for Bell, and all the others he could think of, all 
to 
no avail.

 Terry has subsequently promised me to get back to me on the
problem, and try to solve the missing NPA.  Unfortunatly, Terry's 
going 
away on vacation for two weeks, so he'll continue the investigation 
after-
ward.  I politely suggested that he refer the problem to someone else
while he was gone, but he said "I think I know what you are talking
about, and I don't think I could explain it easily to someone else"
(PARAPHRASE).  Oh well.  Terry will call me back with the results.

 I called 1-800-CALLATT; they didn't know what 500 was about; 
until I persisted.  He can't connect me though.

 Can't wait 'till I can chat with you, Pat!


Scott

Personal reply? Send E-Mail to 4sam3@qlink.queensu.ca for a PGP public 
key.
Keep your friends close...


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I still talk to people from AT&T who 
never
heard of 500 service; have no idea what it is and consider it a 
figment
of my imagination. Very few of the operators seem to know anything 
about
it; they deny such numbers exist, etc. You'd think someone would tell 
them
so they would know how to assist customers; but then, maybe its me who 
is
unclear on the concept.   PAT]

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

From: rdp@palmer.com (Richard Palmer)
Subject: Business vs. Residential Rates
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 18:24:22 GMT
Organization: RD & MA Palmer MD PMC


What are the criteria that the phone company uses to determine if they
can charge business or residential rates to lines in a person's home?
Does this vary from state to state?  Are the criteria mandated by the
state public service commission?


richard.palmer@palmer.com


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Generally if the street address where
service is being installed is known to be an address where business is
conducted (i.e. a store front, an office building, etc) then business
service is required there *unless the subscriber can prove that the
address is used exclusively as a residence*.  A listing or lack of 
same
in the directory (non-pub service) is of no consideration since many
businesses do have non-pub lines.

If the street address is known to be residential, then residential 
service
is offered to the customer unless the customer states that the phone 
will
be used primarily for business-related conversations *or* if the 
subscriber
requests a directory listing in a business (or shall we say non-
strictly
residential, in order to include schools, churches, organizations, 
etc)
name. Business and residential service can be mixed at an address 
which is
residential in nature but residence service cannot be mixed with 
business
service at an address which is commercial in nature. That is, you can 
have
business service in your home if desired, but you may not have 
residence
service in your business, *even if you live there, for instance in the
back room of the store, etc*. 

Requests for entries in the telephone book of a business nature always
require business service. Furthermore, if the requested entry appears
to telco to have been fabricated or devised only for the purpose of
manipulating the position of the listing in the directory, then telco
can require proof that such entry is in fact a name under which the 
business is known, for example by seeing copies of incorporation 
papers
or business license documents. Since listings are sorted in strict
alphabetical order with duplications further sorted in alpha order by
street name and with continued duplications further sorted in 
numerical
order by number on the street (in other words, John A. Smith at 1234
Main Street would appear ahead of John A. Smith at 2345 Main Street) 
and
remaining duplications sorted by phone number (so that two instances 
of
John A. Smith at 1234 Main Street would appear with the one whose 
number was 123-4567 listed ahead of the one whose number was 123-
4579),
should a subscriber choose to be listed simply as 'A' then telco has
the right to demand proof of such a name. Likewise any residential or
business listing demanded where the name would otherwise be an 
offensive
word can be challenged. ("Are you certain your name is Mr. Fu-k?").   
PAT]

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

Subject: National Strategies For Telecom Education?
From: Mikko Usvalehto <mikko.usvalehto@macpost.dipoli.hut.fi>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 17:40:01 +0200


Here in Helsinki University of Technology we are discussing what is
the best way to coordinate telecom education in national level.

Telecom business environment (both for operators and equipment
manufacturers) is turbulent and technology competence needs of the
telecom companies changes rapidly.

Universities and institutes of technology have difficulties to follow
the changes in business and also difficulties to provide education and 
continuing education, which satisfies companies' needs.

We are interested in to know more about how telecom education is 
organised in different countries and is there any national strategies 
for telecom education ?

If you have information on how telecom education has been organised
in your country, then please contact:

mikko.usvalehto@hut.fi


Mikko Usvalehto
Helsinki University of Technology, FINLAND

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

From: jypeng@netcom.com (Jian Yuan Peng)
Subject: Help! - Vertex, DID or ISDN For My Phone Services
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 
guest)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 19:20:53 GMT


Hi,

Can you educate me about my question?

This my first time to setup a telephone services, I have the following
requirements:

I want to setup three service lines and one support line. the service
lines are 800 numbers (one 800 number from MCI). I want to accept
three customers at same time. We plan to expand up to eight service
lines in the future.  For examples, If first customer calls in, then
line one will answer.  If other customers call in at the same time,
when line one is busy, line two will answer. Same as line three, if
line two is busy.  The support line is not the 800 number. On that, 
the
caller pays the toll.

I have asked the hardware ventor, software ventor, and Pacbell about
what kind of system I plan to setup. They told me different answers.
Hardware ventor told me I need a DID system. Software vendor told me
that I need a vertex system form my local telephone company. The
Pacbell person told me (she recommended me) that I should rent a ISDN
line. It seems to me that one of DID, Vertex or ISDN will work for me.
The MCI told me they can broadcast the incoming call to all of three
lines (all of them will ring as the same time.) if I want. I was so
confused by all of them!

Can you tell me what is difference between them? Can I extend to eight
lines system later? Which is the lower cost? I also look into further,
whether we need a T1 line (up to 24 lines) in two years later. Can we
move smoothly from this current setup to 24 lines later? Any recommend-
ations?

Thank you for your information.


Jian Yuan Peng jypeng@netcom.COM
650 Castro Street, Suite 120-265, Mountain View, CA94041


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh, my goodness, my goodness. They are
all going to sell you and oversell you. Forget every bit of what they
told you and let's start over.

Go to PacBell and say one thing:  "I want four lines. Three are to be
in a hunt group where the first hunts the second then the third. I 
want a fourth line which stands alone, not in the hunt group." Period.
That's all you ask for. Do whatever they say or request in the way of
credit requirements to get the lines installed and operating. As soon
as the lines are installed -- and earlier, if you can get the number
for the main line, and are sure it will be correct -- then you call up
MCI -- if that's your pleasure, but I could make other suggestions -- 
and
you tell them "I want an 800 number, and I want it to be pointed to
xxx-xxxx" (whatever the number is PacBell assigned you as the lead 
number
in your group of three lines.)  Period. That's all you say to them. 

When MCI turns on your 800 number and points it to the main number in
your group of three lines, everything you wanted will be accomplished.
If a second or third person calls your 800 number while it is in use
then those calls will be directed -- just like the first one -- to 
your
main listed number. When those overflow calls hit PacBell, the local
telco will put them on your overflow hunt lines two and three. MCI 
does
not need to know *how* you are handling those calls (that in reality 
they are going in your hunt group somewhere) nor does PacBell need to
know (nor do they care) where the calls are coming from, just that 
when
they get them they put them on line one, then two and three as needed.

You will want to make sure that your MCI 800 number has the capability
of handling more than one inbound call at a time; there are a few
out there that literally require you to have an '800 hunt group' with
the inherent extra monthly service charges for each line, but most do
not. Their switches are capable of taking 800 calls en-masse for you
as long as you have somewhere to terminate them on your end. 

Meantime, that single line not part of the hunt group is sitting there
and taking calls. You advertise its regular number so the caller has
to dial that and pay for it.  Next year if your business is still 
around
and prospering and you need another five lines to make eight in total
you call PacBell again and you say "I want five more lines in my 
existing
hunt group."  Period.  

Don't get them all confused using terms like T-1 and vertex and DID. 
That
way they won't get you confused with their conflicting (and frankly, 
sales-
oriented) answers.  You don't need DID and a T-1 ... what are you 
running,
the phone room for the Shopping Channel?   <grin>    PAT]

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

From: Engel2@ix.netcom.com (Bill & Susan Engel)
Subject: Cellular Airtime Resellers
Date: 20 Feb 1995 20:03:49 GMT
Organization: Netcom


I have been trying to find the names of resellers of cellular air time
(if such resellers exist) that are active in the Phoenix, AZ metro
area.  I have contacted the Cellular Resellers Association to no 
avail.

Does anyone have any info regarding this?

Thanks for any help!

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

Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 13:45:19 PST
From: alex capo <farmstead@ping.ping.com>
Subject: Wanted: Used AT&T Business Telephone Systems


Our company buys and sells used AT&T equipment.

For more information you may contact me at 1-800-469-5707.


Thanks!

Alex Capo <acapo@farmstead.ping.com>

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #108
******************************

                                                  
