TELECOM Digest     Mon, 6 Jun 94 15:25:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 275

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T to be Held Accountable? (bkron@netcom.com)
    Re: AT&T to be Held Accountable? (Clifton T. Sharp)
    Re: British Call Forwarding in 1960s (Alan Wright)
    Re: British Call Forwarding in 1960s (Philip J. Tait)
    Re: Largest Calling Areas (Bob Goudreau)
    Re: Largest Calling Areas (Dave O'Heare)
    Re: Largest Calling Areas (Peter Campbell Smith)
    Re: S-s-s-stuttering Dial Tone Detection (B.J. Guillot)
    Re: S-s-s-stuttering Dial Tone Detection (Steven Bradley)
    Re: S-s-s-stuttering Dial Tone Detection (John Harris)
    Re: "Line in use" Circuit For Phone (John Lundgren)
    Re: FCC Seeks Further Comments on 0+ Call Routing (Wes Leatherock)
    Best Way to Get Many (~50) Phone Lines? (Dick St.Peters)
    711 in Atlanta (Les Reeves)

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: bkron@netcom.com (Kronos)
Subject: Re: AT&T to be Held Accountable?
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 03:33:03 GMT


aa377@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ken Kopin) writes:

> Can AT&T actually get away with this kind of misleading advertising?

I always consider such advertising as "image advertising" - like those
ads by the Plastic Manufacturers saying how much better it is to use
paper plates and throw them away in the National Park's "recycling
dumpster."  If you spend enough for television ads, then the networks
become dependent on the income and are less likely to run stories
which portray you in a negative light.

> ...  AT&T ... now actively competing with Ameritech/Illinois Bell for
> local traffic between the 312/708 area codes.

When I was talking to our AT&T Account Executive here in Seattle last
week, she informed me that, as of about six months ago, they could now
provide intralata toll here in LATA 674.  The rates she quoted me were
slightly less than what the LEC, US West, charges.  But when I tried
to verify her figures by calling the AT&T "00" operator, I found the
toll guides the operator had showed substantially higher rates!  I
presumed that, since I hadn't heard any advertising about this new
alternative to local toll traffic by AT&T (or any other IEC, for that
matter), the operator was probably right and the AE was ... wrong.  By
the way, she said the same thing about having to prepend AT&T's 10288
access code.

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

From: clifto@indep1.chi.il.us (Clifton T. Sharp)
Subject: Re: AT&T to be Held Accountable?
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 17:24:25 GMT


In article <telecom14.272.7@eecs.nwu.edu> PAT writes:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Just this morning I heard a radio commercial
> saying AT&T was now actively competing with Ameritech/Illinois Bell for
> local traffic between the 312/708 area codes. If local calls here are to
> points (relative to the calling party) in the 'C' or 'D' bands (the most
> expensive of the local intra-lata calls here) then according to the message
> on the radio, AT&T will be less expensive. The commercial said one will
> save 'up to twenty percent' on those calls by prepending 10288 (or actually
> 'one-oh-ATT' was the way it was phrased in the commercial) to the dialing
> string.  This will be interesting to test out. If any Digest readers in
> the 312/708 area routinely make calls to far-away local points (what would
> be a 'C' or 'D' band call for you) then you might want to test out AT&T's
> claims. Please note that 1+ from/to 312/708 still defaults to local service
> via Illinois Bell. You need to do it 10288 + 1 +.  Let us know.   PAT]

   I've heard the commercial myself (and think I saw one on TV), and it
raises a little curiosity in my mind.

   I've been trying hard to figure out what actually happens, WRT
billing, when I make a long-distance call.  My copy of the V-H
coordinates in hand from the current Illinois Commerce Commission
tariff filing, I see two tables, one called "V and H coordinates of
S.A. Centers" and the other "V and H Coordinates of Exchange Rate
Centers".  The former (in Part 6, Section 1, "Series Channel Service")
lists all the various CO names in Chicago (e.g., Pullman, Irving,
Lawndale, even one called "105"); the latter (in Part 4, "Long
Distance Telecommunications Service") lists one V-H set for Chicago,
apparently at Canal.

   I get the impression that that one item on the latter list is the
LD gateway for the entire city of Chicago, which makes me wonder
whether someone calling from Pullman to Irving (which looks enough
like a "C" band call that I'll treat it as such for this discussion)
wouldn't be paying MORE for the call by calling through AT&T, or any
LD carrier for that matter; seems to me they'd be charged "message
units" for the B (or C?) call to Canal, plus the AT&T charge for the
call itself.  This, of course, wouldn't be visible to anyone who's not
monitoring every call and every second spent on the phone and
tabulating "message units"; all we'd find out is whether the AT&T
charge (not counting the Pullman-Canal connection) would be cheaper
than the Pullman- Irving connection.

   Of course, it could be that the LD call is routed through the
Calumet City "Exchange Rate Center", which is closer and (without
doing the math) looks like an A call.  But we all know that if Chicago
is tariffed through Canal, they probably wouldn't do a thing like
that.  Or, it could even be that the tariff specifies that LD access
is not billed by Ameritech ... naaaaah.  (I don't have and can't
afford a copy of the entire tariff; all I got was the V-H tables and a
page on mileage measurement.)

   
   Cliff Sharp  
     WA9PDM  
  clifto@indep1.chi.il.us

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

From: awright@gucis.cit.gu.edu.au (Alan Wright)
Subject: Re: British Call Forwarding in 1960s
Organization: Griffith University, CIT.
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 04:03:04 GMT


Andrew C. Green <ACG@dlogics.com> writes:

> Randall Gellens (RANDY@MPA15AB.mv-oc.Unisys.COM) writes:

>> He picks up his phone [...] and dials three digits.  He says
>> "Operator?  This is WHitehall xxxx.  My name is John Steed.  I will
>> be away for the next three weeks.  Please forward my calls to the
>> usual number."  

>> What sort of call-forwarding was offered by British Telecom in the
>> 1960s?

> At the risk of over-analyzing a fictional scene, I get the impression
> he wasn't speaking to the telephone company operator, but to some sort
> of government operator at the other end of a private line. I base this
> conclusion on the fact that he dialed only three digits (I would have
> expected contemporary numbers in the London area to be at least five),
> and referred to his own number as "Whitehall", an inspired (if not
> fictitious) choice for a British government phone network prefix. Had
> he called whatever the local equivalent of 611 was (for repair or some
> other service), I don't think he would have addressed the other party
> as "Operator".

The UK equivalent of 611 is 192.

All UK numbers in the big cities, (London, Manchester, etc.), were
made up of an exchange name, followed by four digits.  You dialed the
first three letters followed by the four digits, (eg CHO 1234, for
Chorlton 1234), Only local calls were self dialed then.  Later the
letters were replaced by numbers, (eg CHO was replaced by 881).  The
Operator was obtained by dialing 0, (later changed to 100); this
change happened during the late 60's/early 70's.  However London, (as
the capital), was always the first to get the new technology, (dial
100), and therefore the operator would offer the govenment, (as their
boss), special MANUAL call forwarding for long distance (trunk) calls.

In those days the Post Office ran the telephone system, not British
Telecom, (which was invented to allow the option of selling off the
phone system, and this was done in the 1980's).


Al

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

From: pjt@pelab.allied.com (Philip J. Tait)
Subject: Re: British Call Forwarding in 1960s
Date: 6 Jun 1994 19:42:55 GMT
Organization: AlliedSignal Engines
Reply-To: pjt@pelab.allied.com (Philip J. Tait)


100 was the number to reach the operator after STD was introduced in
the 1960s.

> and referred to his own number as "Whitehall", an inspired (if not
> fictitious) choice for a British government phone network prefix.

WHItehall was a valid London "exchange", as I recall.



Philip J. Tait         AlliedSignal Engines, Phoenix, Az        +1 602 231
7104
GED::B12635         pjt@pelab.allied.com        
tait@venus.research.allied.com

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

Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 12:02:34 -0400
From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: Re: Largest Calling Areas 


brendan@mpce.mq.edu.au (Brendan Jones) writes:

> In article telecom14.250.3@eecs.nwu.edu, johns@scroff.UK (John Slater)
> wrote:

>> I believe Greater London is the largest geographic calling area in
>> the world.

> Then you believe mistakenly!  Australia has many calling areas larger
> than this.  Much *much* larger!

> The largest calling area in Australia is the (089) zone which covers
> all of the Northern Territory and then some....

Unless I'm mistaken about how Australian calls are billed, you're
completely missing John's point.  He's not bragging about the size of
*area codes* (indeed, Greater London is the densest node of population
in the UK and requires two area codes now).  Rather, I infer that by
"calling areas" he means "the geographic area to which one can make
those calls billed at the lowest rate".  In the US, we would probably
say "local calling area" -- the region in which residential customers
can make free calls (for most of the US) or calls metered at the
cheapest rate (for those unfortunate areas that have local measured
service).

The bragging rights for largest local calling area in the US have been
debated before in TELECOM Digest, although I don't recall who won.  (I do
remember someone saying that the local calling area for the Atlanta,
Georgia region was something like 50 to 80 miles [80 to 130 km] in
diameter.)  Of course, most North American area codes are much larger
than local calling areas; sparsely populated western states and
Canadian provinces usually have but a single area code each.  Indeed,
Alaska (area code 907) is geographically larger than the NT.  Area
codes 413 and 819 together cover Canada's vast Northwest and Yukon
Territories, not to mention all of Alberta and a chunk of Quebec.  And
there are probably Russian area codes in eastern and northern Siberia
that dwarf even these examples.

Now, is it really true that a call from anywhere in the Northern
Territory to anywhere else in the NT is always billed at anything
close to the same rate?  I.e., that a call down the block within
Darwin costs the about the same as a call from Darwin to some deep
outback town?  If so, I'll concede that you are indeed comparing
apples to apples.


Bob Goudreau   Data General Corporation
goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com  62 Alexander Drive 
+1 919 248 6231   Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA

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

Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 11:31:03 -0400
From: doheare@jetform.com (Dave O'Heare)
Subject: Re: Largest Calling Areas


You know, I would have thought that Inmarsat was the largest single
calling area :-)


Dave O'Heare   doheare@jetform.com


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your humor is noted, but see the earlier
letter in this issue as to the way we are defining things. I suppose to
use your criteria, 'area code' 800 would be the largest area.   PAT]

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

From: campbellsm@lish.logica.com (Peter Campbell Smith)
Subject: Re: Largest Calling Areas
Organization: Logica, London
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 14:20:52 GMT


In article <telecom14.269.8@eecs.nwu.edu>, brendan@macadam.mpce.mq.edu.au
(Brendan Jones) wrote:

> In article telecom14.250.3@eecs.nwu.edu, johns@scroff.UK (John Slater)
> wrote:

>> I believe Greater London is the largest geographic calling area in
the world.  

> Then you believe mistakenly!  Australia has many calling areas
> larger than this.  Much *much* larger!

I presume the original writer meant the largest number of people or
phones in a local calling area defined by a geographical area.  By
'local' he meant (referring to the original post) the area within
which all calls are charged at the local rate, which may not be the
same as those having the same dialling code.

The resident population of the local calling area in London must be
around eight million. I don't know, but I would doubt that this is a
record, since several third world cities have much larger populations
and I might guess that they do not all have phone systems which divide
the city into several charging zones.  London might win, however, on
number of phones or exchange lines, though I wouldn't bank on possibly
Tokyo or New York City (212) beating it.  Does anyone have the facts?

Around 20 years ago Atlanta claimed to have the largest local calling
area in the US, though I'm not sure I believed it even then.


Peter Campbell Smith, Logica plc, London.  Voice: +44 71 637 9111
Fax: +44 71 344 3638  Internet: campbellsm@lish.logica.com

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

From: st1r8@elroy.uh.edu (B.J. Guillot)
Subject: Re: S-s-s-stuttering Dial Tone Detection
Date: 6 Jun 1994 12:47 CDT
Organization: University of Houston


In article <telecom14.266.5@eecs.nwu.edu>, davep@u.washington.edu
(Dave Ptasnik) writes...

> kmp@tiac.net (K. M. Peterson) writes:

>> My problem: I don't want to have to lift the handset to find out if I
>> have messages.  Has someone come up with a box to sit on one's line
>> and detect this (and flash a lamp or something)?

> A Canadian company called Xinex Networks, Inc. makes an amazing
> telephone called the mindSET.  It periodically samples the line
> looking for stutter dial tone, and turns on a big message light when

Speaking of "stutter dial tone", I called SW Bell the other day to get
information on their voice mail service (Call Notes), and the rep guy
said "When you lift up the handset, you will hear a SPECIAL noise that
indicates a message is waiting."

I then asked him, you mean "stutter dialtone?"

He replied "Exactly!  But it's politically incorrect for us to use
that term now, or we could get fired."

Well, I thought it was interesting.  :-)...


Regards,

B.J. Guillot ... Houston, Texas USA

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

From: steven@sgb.oau.org (Steven Bradley)
Subject: Re: S-s-s-stuttering Dial Tone Detection
Organization: The Forest City Exchange, Forest City, Florida
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 18:52:26 GMT


> I believe the BelTronics Caller-ID unit also has a "MSG" display on
> the unit.  You can get this unit at Lechmere.
                                      ^^^^^^^^
Do you have an address or phone number for this company?


Internet:        steven@sgb.oau.org          Steven G. Bradley
                 steven@gate.net             Forest City, Florida
GEnie:           s.bradley6@genie.geis.com  
CompuServe:      73232.505@compuserve.com    Phone:   407/862-7226
America Online:  sgbradley@aol.com           Modem:   407/862-8088

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

Date: Mon, 6 Jun 94 15:45 WET
From: joharris@io.org (John Harris)
Subject: Re: S-s-s-stuttering Dial Tone Detection


Jpc@mtrac.com wrote:

>> Stretching my one phone line ever further, I'm considering getting
>> voicemail from our local telco.
 
>> My problem: I don't want to have to lift the handset to find out if I
>> have messages.  Has someone come up with a box to sit on one's line
>> and detect this (and flash a lamp or something)?

> I believe the BelTronics Caller-ID unit also has a "MSG" display on
> the unit.  You can get this unit at Lechmere.

Beware.  The message waiting feature on the BEL-Tronics Caller ID unit,
which is not an advertized feature, will only work in specific instances.

The telephone company must deliver a Caller ID message waiting signal as
specified by Bell Canada ID-0008.  Multiple Data Message Format, paramater
code 11, status 255 to turn ON, status 0 to turn OFF.

The telephone company must deliver a ring signal before the Visual
message waiting signal; since the Caller ID unit is battery powered
and goes to sleep except for 28 seconds after a ring.

In words of one sylable.  Don't expect it to work unless you live in
Toronto or Montreal.

John Harris      BEL-Tronics Ltd, Mississauga, Ontario L5L 1J9
joharris@io.org  (905) 828-1002             Fax (905) 828-2951

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

From: jlundgre@ohlone.kn.PacBell.COM (John Lundgren)
Subject: Re: "Line in use" Circuit For Phone
Date: 6 Jun 94 17:14:57 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Knowledge Network


Re: Phone in use indicator LED.  Some of the enquiries are for
something to prevent the abort of the modem session when another phone
is picked up.  There is another, better way around this.

The decent quality modems have two jacks, one for line and one for
phone.  The phone jack is disconnected from the line when there is a
session in progress.  Some cheap modems don't because the two jacks
are just in parallel.

If you have a direct two pair line from your modem to the phone line
entrance point, you can use this method.  Connect the second pair to a
modular plug that connects to the 'phone' jack on the modem.  Then run
this line clear back to the entrance point, and connect all the other
phone lines to it.  When your modem is off-hook, the other phones
won't get any dial tone.  Connect green to black and red to yellow.

You have to make up a jumper block to use when you've got the modem
unplugged.  Take a regular modular block with two jacks and connect
the green and red wires together.  Then when you have the modem
unplugged, plug both lines into the two jacks, so that others have
dial tone.

People say that this isn't a very realistic way to do it, but it's the
ONLY way that will guarantee that the session won't be aborted by
someone picking up a phone ... because blinking LEDs won't!


John Lundgren - Elec Tech - Info Tech Svcs 
Rancho Santiago Community College District 
17th St. at Bristol \ Santa Ana, CA 92706  
Voice (714) JOHN GAB \ FAX (714) JOHN FRY  
jlundgre@pop.rancho.cc.ca.us\jlundgr@eis.calstate.edu

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

From: Wes.Leatherock@tranquil.nova.com (Wes Leatherock)
Date: 05 Jun 94 21:46:00 -0600
Subject: Re: FCC Seeks Further Comments on 0+ Call Routing
Organization: Fidonet


 -=> Quoting sbrack@esserv01.utnetw.utoledo.edu (Steve Brack) <=-

 > In almost every other area of business I can think of, the greatest
 > latitude in billing arrangements is given to the person paying for the
 > service, rather than the person using it.  All BPP will do is bring
 > telephone billing in line with standard commercial practice.

        This is definitely not true in anything when you are sending
something to someone else.  The sender decides whether to send
something by regular U.S. mail, Express Mail, Federal Express (three
different levels of service), UPS (numerous levels of service),
Roadway Package Systems, Airborne Express, Emery Airfreight, a large
number of common carrier truck lines, contract truck lines and
independents, railroads (numerous different routings).

        Many of these offer "collect" service that works just like it
does for a telephone call.  And in every case the carrier that the
shipper tenders the shipment to will take the shipment to its
destination, or give it to a connection that takes it to its
destination, and will collect for the charges.  (And there are some-
times difficulties when the consignee wants the shipment sent one way
and the shipper sends all its shipments some other way.  But nobody
has suggested a government regulation ought to cover this, even though
they all use the same public streets and highways to pick up and
deliver.)

       When there were separate telegraph companies, if you sent a
telegraph by Postal Telegraph it would be delivered by Postal
Telegraph, which would collect the charges if the message was sent
collect.  If you sent it by Western Union, Western Union would carry
it and collect for it.  And Postal did not deliver over Western
Union's tielines ("WUX") to the customer, nor did Western Union
deliver over Postal's tielines.

       The same thing was true of international record carriers.  If
you sent your message by RCA Communications, it would be delivered
(and collected for) by RCA Communications.  If you sent it by Mackay
Communications that carrier would carry it and collect for the charges
from the received.  Same thing was true if you sent it by the French
cable company (I forget their exact name), or one of several other
carriers that served various parts of the world.

       In all these similar cases in the past and into the present, it
has been up to the intended receiver of the shipment or communication
to get -- or try to get -- the sender to send it by the way preferred
by the receiver.  Why shouldn't the same be true of telephone calls?

       The FCC proposal was in its formative stages at least three
years ago, and it seems a very expensive project, especially as it is
at variance with the common custom.


Wes Leatherock    wes.leatherock@tranquil.nova.com                           
wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What you say is true, but you must remember
that the recipient has the right to refuse the collect shipment or telegram
or whatever. If Federal Express shows up at my door with a package I did
not order and it was sent collect, do you think I am going to pay for it?
I just tell the man to take it back wherever it came from; then when the
recipient gets it back he *has* to pay, even for the non-delivery since he
caused the freight company to carry the package both ways, etc.  Likewise
if I get a collect phone call announced by the <whoever> operator, I refuse
it rather than risk a very high surcharge, etc. If you want me to pay for
something (package or phone call, etc) then you deliver it according to
my instructions or it does not get delivered. If you pay, then you make
those decisions.   PAT]

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

From: stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com (Dick St.Peters)
Subject: Best Way to Get Many (~50) Phone Lines?
Reply-To: stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com
Organization: GE Corporate R&D, Schenectady, NY
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 19:24:04 GMT


Hi.  I'm new to telecom things and need help.  (Lots of it ...)

I'm becoming an Internet provider -- dialup PPP/SLIP, so I need a lot
of phone lines.  NYNEX says it wants a ten-year contract (with a bond)
before it will install a lot of pairs to my house.

They will gladly sell me several T1s, but even though I'm less than a
mile from my CO, this is more than twice the cost per line ... without
even including costs of the equipment to demux the T1s.  Further, they
tell me that all 24 lines on a T1 must be used for voice lines ... I
can't use any of them as 56k DDS local loops ... no tariff, they say.
(I forgot to ask about 3002 leased voice lines.)

NYNEX would be happier about stringing lots of pairs to a real office,
but I'd have to rent the office, so the costs actually work out sort
of similar unless the demux equipment is really expensive.  How expensive 
is it?  What is it?

NYNEX says I need a PBX.  Do I really need one if I only want to tie
each line to a modem and/or terminal server?

Finally, what am I not asking that I should be?


Dick St.Peters, Gatekeeper, Pearly Gateway; currently at:
GE Corporate R&D, Schenectady, NY   stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com
                             soon:  stpeters@NetHeaven.com

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

From: lreeves@crl.com (Les Reeves)
Subject: 711 in Atlanta
Date: 6 Jun 1994 12:52:43 -0700
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access  (415) 705-6060  [login: guest]


The second N11 service sold by BellSouth to the highest bidder gets
off the ground this week.  Williams' 711 service is working in most
parts of the city now.  The official start-up is June 15.

Some of the services are free, others are $ 0.25 or more per call.
According to the 711 operator, the pay services will not be charging
for the next week or so.  Unlike Cox's 511 service, 711 will have both
free and pay-per-call programs.

The time, weather, and lottery info is free. Dial #5 to get connected
to WAGA's free time, weather, and lottery info.


Les          lreeves@crl.com         Atlanta, GA     404.874.7806

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #275
******************************

