DP Tool Club 12/CD_ASCQ_12_0294.iso/vrac/tc14_60.zip/TC14-60.TXT

Text File | 1994-02-06 | 29KB | 634 lines

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:29:00 CST    Volume 14 : Issue 60

Inside This Issue:                         Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Digital Sound and Unisys Agreement; Other News (Randall Gellens)
    Recommendations on Small Cellular Phones Wanted (Steve Lawrence)
    Increase Stand-by Time of Mobile Phones (Yang Yu-shuang)
    Data Over Power Lines: a Newbie Question (David Anthony Ruppel)
    Looking For Inexpensive/Simple Analog PBX (Sam Lipson)
    Wanted: Fortran VCR+ Program / Eight Digit Decode (David Roberts)
    Re: Informing Ourselves to Death (David Hough)
    Re: Informing Ourselves to Death (Christopher M. Wolf)
    Re: Informing Ourselves to Death (Carl Moore)
    Re: Informing Ourselves to Death (Timothy Finin)
    Re: DID Questions (David Devereaux-Weber)
    Re: Phone Number History (Rich Greenberg)
    Re: Phone Number History (Al Varney)
    Re: Phone Number History (Carl Moore)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and GEnie.
Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations
and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [e-mail].

    ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

TELECOM Digest is gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom. It has no connection with the unmoderated
Usenet newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom.tech whose mailing list "Telecom-Tech
Digest" shares archives resources at lcs.mit.edu for the convenience
of users. Please *DO NOT* cross post articles between the groups. All
opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: 03 FEB 94 09:11:00 GMT
Subject: Digital Sound and Unisys Agreement


Agreement Extends Message Processing Solution to New Markets Worldwide

Digital Sound and Unisys yesterday announced an agreement to offer
midrange message-processing solutions to telephone companies
worldwide.  Under this agreement Unisys will market the Digital Sound
VoiceServer 3110 message-processing system as part of its voice-
messaging architecture.

Partnering with Digital Sound will enable Unisys to economically
provide enhanced services to the more remote serving areas of larger
telephone companies, communicating voice, fax and text messages
between the VoiceServer 3110 and Unisys own Network Application
Platform (NAP) message-processing system over data communications
facilities.

The Digital Sound open systems platform already interoperates with NAP,
and together the two platforms combine into a distributed architecture
to offer a total solution to telecommunications service providers.

Additionally, the VoiceServer 3110, Digital Sound's largest-capacity
message-processing system will scale the NAP capabilities downward
allowing smaller telecommunications companies to benefit from
distributed voice processing and mixed-media services.

"We believe the partnership with Unisys will allow us to reach new
customers and new markets, especially overseas," said Robert Knight,
president of Digital Sound.

Eight of America's ten largest phone companies call on Unisys to
execute millions of mission-critical transactions daily.  Thirty-five
of the world's largest telecommunications companies also rely on
Unisys to deliver innovative new sources of revenue.  Unisys NAP
provides cost-effective solutions for the rapid introduction of voice
messaging, fax mail, enhanced 911 capability, and other
market-sensitive offerings.

Digital Sound is a leading supplier of high-capacity network-based
message processing systems.  It makes and markets the VoiceServer
family of products which integrate voice, fax, e-mail and other
messaging technologies on a single, open systems platform that links
to both telephony and computer networks.

A CONSORTIUM OF CANADIAN COMPANIES is developing interactive cable
television in Quebec (AP, 1/24/94).  During the next three years, the
companies plan to spend $200 million to begin offering movies on
demand, shopping, banking and advertising services.  Recently, Hearst
Corp. has joined the consortium, investing $20 million.  It will
provide business listing and advertising services on the cable system,
called UBI (Universal Bidirectional Interactivity).  The system is an
attempt to move some of the services traditionally available through
personal computers to television, said Frank Bennack Jr., Hearst's
president and chief executive.  Other consortium members include Le
Group Videotron, National Bank of Canada, Hydro-Quebec, Canada Post
Corp., Videoway Communications and Loto-Quebec.

HEWLETT-PACKARD AND PACIFIC TELESIS GROUP will develop an interactive
video-on-demand service for the California market later this year (AP,
1/24/94).  Pacific Telesis Video Services will use HP computers to
store and transmit movies to regions where it is upgrading its wires,
including Orange County, Los Angeles, San Diego and the Silicon Valley.


Randall Gellens           [e-mail]|
A Series System Software
Unisys Corporation        [Please forward bounce messages|
Mission Viejo, CA          to: [e-mail]]|

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Lawrence)
Subject: Recommendations on Small Cellular Phones Wanted
Date: 3 Feb 94 02:30:10 GMT
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland


I am looking for information on which is the best of the really
compact cellular phones. I have heard that the Audiovox Mini-vox lite
is prone to the case falling apart. Thanks for any information.


Steve

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

From: [e-mail] (Yang Yu-shuang)
Subject: Increase Stand-by Time of Mobile Phones
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 05:06:08 GMT


Hi Net Friends,

I am a new mobile phone user. In general, it is an useful toy.
However, it also has some potential problems. The biggest problem is
with the battery life. It is a bit of pain to carry a heavy battery
and to re-charge it everyday. Most of the battery power is consumed
during the stand-by time.  People can't afford to talk to long.

The problem could be solved if the mobile phones are designed
differently.  For instance, it could have an internal switch which
turned the receiver circuit on and off periodically for a short interval
to monitor the incoming calls. Off because it should be on during the
conversation.  For instance, turn it on for 0.01 seconds every second
would not miss an incoming call but could increase the stand-by time
by a factor of 100. We all know that a pager consumes very little power
and many cordless phones do this to save battery power.


Any comments?

YSY   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (David Anthony Ruppel)
Subject: Data Over Power Lines: a Newbie Question
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 18:49:26 -0500
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada


I am interested in finding information related to devices such as the
'plug'n'power' units available at Radio Shack and similar units.

Any information or reference would be greatly appreciated.

Please reply via e-mail to: [e-mail]

Thanks in advance.


D. Ruppel

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

From: [e-mail] (Sam Lipson)
Subject: Looking For Inexpensive/Simple Analog PBX
Organization: I-Kinetics, Inc., Cambridge, MA USA
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 22:34:36 GMT


We're looking for a simple, or at least inexpensive PBX to use for
connecting data and or FAX modems to outside phone lines.

What we have in mind is two to four outside phone lines, and say, six
to twelve internal "ports".  A modem, or FAX machine, dials out (perhaps
with 9+ number), and gets connected to one of the free outside lines,
if one is available.  An inbound call would get connected to one of
two designated devices.

We have absolutely no need to call between "extensions", and in fact
could skip the inbound calling capability if it significantly lowers
the price.

I've been pointed towards the AT&T Partner system, but in the two
line, six extension configuration it prices out at $1K (list?).


Sam

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

From: [e-mail] (David Roberts)
Subject: Wanted: Fortran VCR+ Program / Eight Digit Decode
Date: 2 Feb 1994 19:15:57 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA


Recently, someone posted a Fortran version of the vcrplus decoder to
either rec.video or comp.dcom. I'd like a copy.

I've looked for an archive of rec.video, but can't find one, is there
one?

I'm also looking for vcr+ software that handles eight digit codes.
(the standard C one only does six digits) Does anyone have this?


Thanks,

DaveR

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

From: [e-mail] (David Hough)
Subject: Re: Informing Ourselves to Death
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 07:08:51 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Tom Horsley) writes:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I did not get quite the same impression
> of Postman's speech that you and Gilder recieved. I do not think
> Postman said computers were dangerous, only that they could be misused
> and too much reliance could be placed in them. At least one other person
> enjoyed Postman's meditation, as the next letter in this issue will
> reveal.  PAT]

Is this an apt place for the quote 'To err is human, but to really
foul it up you need a computer'?


Dave
G4WRW @ GB7WRW.#41.GBR.EU AX25
[e-mail]  Internet
[e-mail]      Amprnet


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A sign I had hanging on the wall for a
few years said, "Our computer is so human that when it makes a mistake
it blames it on another computer."  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Christopher M. Wolf)
Subject: Re: Informing Ourselves to Death
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 1994 07:49:39 EST


I just wanted to say how much I enjoyed the article "Informing
Ourselves to Death" that you mailed.  I re-mailed it to several
people.  As an Electrical Engineer and a Computer Scientist, I think
it was a good article to keep in mind in the future.


Christopher Wolf  [e-mail]  Electrical Engineer/Computer Scientist


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The reactions have been mixed. You
probably read what George Gilder said here the next day; I guess it
must have pushed his buttons the wrong way.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 03 Feb 94 06:45:53 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Informing Ourselves to Death


[e-mail] writes:

> He was talking about some 18th century professional quack (who's
> name I forget), who went around opposing things like trains with a
> bunch of psuedo science babble about how the breathtaking speed would
> be bound to psycologically damage the travellers.

How do you arrive at 18th century (the 1700s)?  Trains came in the
19th century, and I remember reading someplace that 30 miles per hour
was considered fast back then.  (In some old "Highlights for Children"
magazine of about 30 years ago, I recall some composer being held back
in some studying out of fear of "hurting the brain".)

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

Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 21:07:30 -0500
From: Timothy Finin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Informing Ourselves to Death
Organization: Computer Science, University of Maryland Baltimore County


I found the comments by Neil Postman to be quite interesting but
paradoxical, or at least ironic.  The real point of this speech (for
me) seems to me to be expressed in the following passages:

> The tie between information and action has been severed. Information
> is now a commodity that can be bought and sold, or used as a form of
> entertainment, or worn like a garment to enhance one's status. It
> comes indiscriminately, directed at no one in particular, disconnected
> from usefulness; we are glutted with information, drowning in
> information, have no control over it, don't know what to do with it.

> And there are two reasons we do not know what to do with it. First, as
> I have said, we no longer have a coherent conception of ourselves, and
> our universe, and our relation to one another and our world. ...
> Second, we  have directed all of our energies and intelligence to inventing
> machinery that does nothing but increase the supply of information.
  ...

> Or, let us come down to a more personal level: If you and your spouse
> are unhappy together, and end your marriage in divorce, will it happen
> because of a lack of information? If your children misbehave and bring
> shame to your family, does it happen because of a lack of information?
> If someone in your family has a mental breakdown, will it happen
> because of a lack of information?

> I believe you will have to concede that what ails us, what causes us the
> most misery and pain - at both cultural and personal levels - has nothing
> to do with the sort of information  made accessible by computers. The
> computer and its information cannot answer any of the fundamental quest-
> ions we need to address to make our lives more meaningful and humane.

 ...  and is a comment on the *content* of the information which is
being conveyed by the new medium.  What I found ironic is that I was
only reading this interesting and thought-provoking essay *by virtue
of the new medium*.  And what's more, there are probably tens of
thousands of people like me who would never have read and thought
about Postman's ideas if it were not for the Internet, newsgroups and
email.  And what's even more, the article has generated dozens or
maybe hundreds of interactions and conversations among people arguing
over these ideas and the underlying philosophical notions. To me, this
was evidence that the strong reading of his essay is not true.


Tim Finin                                               Phone: [phone]
Computer Science Department                               Fax: [phone]
University of Maryland Baltimore County            Email: [e-mail]
5401 Wilkens Ave., Baltimore MD 21228      Home: 410-783-2625, 215-386-1749

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

Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 08:27:14 CST
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: DID Questions


On Sun, 30 Jan 1994 23:34:33 -0800 Thomas Tengdin <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Can anyone tell me how DID lines pass the number down the trunk?

The DID trunks I have used in the past have used pulse or DTMF.


David Devereaux-Weber, P.E.             [e-mail] (Internet)
The University of Wisconsin - Madison   [phone] (voice)
DoIT - MACC Communications; B263        [phone] (FAX)
1210 W Dayton St.   Madison, WI 53706

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

From: [e-mail] (Rich Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Phone Number History
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 22:02:35 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> TELECOM Digest Editor noted in
response to Steve Schlesinger <[e-mail]>:

> The Amoco Oil Refinery which makes up about ninety percent of the
> physical space in Whiting oddly enough had a dial PBX system in place
> for a few years before Whiting went from manual to dial service. When
> you dialed '9' from the PBX instead of getting a new dialtone you
> simply sat there a couple seconds and the 'number please?' lady came
> on the line. Their switchboard number was (Whiting) 2111 and it of
> course became 659-2111, although under the old system no one actually
> asked the operator for 2111, they merely would say 'Refinery' or
> 'Standard Oil' (as it was known in those days), and the operator would
> immediatly plug them into one of a dozen or so lines going into the
> company PBX. Hunt groups in those days consisted of the operator

Pat, what happened after the operator plugged into the refinery's
"hunt group"?  Did the outside caller get an Amoco operator who then
connected them to the desired extension?  Were the dial capabilities
of the PBX only usable within Amoco?


Rich Greenberg            Work: ETi Solutions, Oceanside & L.A. CA 310-348-7677
N6LRT   TinselTown, USA   Play: [e-mail]                  310-649-0238
GMT-8    I speak for myself and my dogs only.       Canines: Chinook & Husky


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In those days there was a network called
'Stan-O-Tel' which stood for 'Standard Oil Telecom'. All Amoco (but then
its name was Standard Oil of Indiana) facilities around the USA were
connected through Stan-O-Tel. All the refineries had tie-lines to each
other and the headquarters in Chicago via SOT. Each local facility as
well as the Chicago headquarters dialed 9 to get an 'outside line' in
their local community. I think they dialed 8 to get the telecom switch
at the headquarters in Chicago (followed by a four digit extension at
someone's desk at headquarters). I think they dialed 7 followed by three
digit codes to connect with the tie lines to other facilties followed
by the extension at the local facility which depending on the local
equipment might be two, three or four digits. I think Whiting Refinery
also had some code you could dial which got you a 'Chicago dial tone'
on a FX line. I know Whiting Refinery had a Chicago number in addition
to the Whiting number 2111. I think it was 'SOuth Chicago-8 2000' but
my memory fades out on that. All PBXs in those days were one-way things.
You had internal extension-to-extension dialing and 9 for outside lines.
Incoming calls went to the PBX operator who extended them, usually on
a cord board. When my grandfather worked there he was one of the managers
and he had a six-button, five line phone on his desk. The phone had
two refinery extensions, plus an FX line with a Chicago number and his
own private local number, Whiting 372. His home number was Whiting 6159,
and a school I went to there sometimes was 3200. The payphone in the
school cafeteria was 9567. *Those* numbers I do remember.

I seem to recall them putting in the 'new automatic switchboard' at
Amoco about 1955 or so. Prior to that, intra-refinery calls were
handled by an operator at a switchboard within the complex along with
all the incoming and outgoing calls. Whiting was the last place in the
Chicago area to 'convert to dial service', and that was about 1962.
>From everywhere else we had dial service, but if you wanted to call
someone in Whiting we dialed '711' and it would click ... from five
seconds to a minute later a woman (during the day; they had some guy
at night) would answer by saying "Whiting!" and you'd tell 'em the
number you wanted. When it was announced Whiting was 'cutting to dial
service' on a certain date at 2:00 AM, I stayed at my grandparent's
house (in Whiting) that night to see how it was done.

Starting about 1:55 AM I went off hook and the guy said 'number
please?'. I asked for '1234' which was the number for the recorded
message giving showtimes at the Hoosier Theatre downtown. I did it
again at 1:59 AM and the man connected me again. At about ten seconds
after 2:00 AM I went off hook and got nothing. At 2:01 AM I went off
hook and there was dial tone. No more 'number please', however dialing
659-1234 got me the theatre announcement. The phones originally had
blank fronts with no dial but for about three months before the cutover
the installers had gone to every phone in town and retrofitted the
instruments with a rotary dial and a little tag which said 'dial is
not in operation until xx/xx/xx at 2:00 AM.' (I think it was 1959-60).

A curious thing the day before: From a phone in *Chicago* the 711/wait
for operator/give number worked as always. But I tried dialing (a day
prematurely) 659-1234 and it rang!  The theatre box office answered
but within a few seconds the Whiting operator came on the line asking
'number please?' The way she saw it, the theatre phone had gone off
hook to make an outgoing call when in reality they had gone off hook
to answer me. I guess it was all wired in parallel at that point
pending the cutover, and at the time, they saw no reason for anyone in
Whiting to go off hook unless the Whiting operator was handling the
call.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu,  3 Feb 94 07:53:56 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Phone Number History
Organization: AT&T


In article <[e-mail]>, PAT says:

>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, I gave a hasty rendition of the
>> history. We went from 3L/4D to 2L/5D about 1950 or so; then about 1960
>> we began seeing 7D in the phone book and as the only way things were
>> being assigned.

  And Steve Schlesinger <[e-mail]> asks:

> Before 3L/4D wasn't there 2L/4D?

  PAT responds, in part, with:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not that I know of. Before name/number
> combinations (which existed almost from the beginning in big cities)
> there were just numbers. In small towns, one to four digit numbers were
> common and that was it. If a town had only one exchange, or switchboard,
> its name was usually the name of the town where it was located, and
> reciting it as part of the number was redundant. When things expanded
> to include names, some towns got to keep their (town) name as the phone
> exchange name; i.e. Atlantic City, NJ still has the exchange name
> ATlantic City, although 285-xxxx is the way it is expressed now. Where
> conflicts occurred, they made up other names for conflicting exchanges.

   Exchanges never had conflicting names because telephone companies
always had to name the building containing the exchange.  In most
cases, the town name WAS the exchange name and was also the name
customers were told to use for calling purposes.  In advertising, this
permitted such phrases as "Springfield Lumber Co., Telephone 37".  (I
have exactly this text -- for another town -- on a wooden yard-stick
from the 40s.)  Of course, after customer dialing became common, the
exchange names were chosen for their ease of dialing/spelling in the
local area.  But regional differences made such names as "KArl" vs.
"CArl" a source of operator dialing errors, so the Bell System created
an "approved list" of exchange names.

   The oft-referenced BSTJ article from September, 1952, "Nationwide
Numbering Plan", indicates there were then about 20,000 COs in the USA
and Canada.  Eleven different numbering plans were in use within the
Bell System.  By then, the three-letter exchange names had "officially"
been eliminated; for example, PENnsylvania in New York was changed to
PEnnsylvania-6 (of course, the customer still dialed the same 636
code).

   These 11 plans were (page 854 of above BSTJ volume):

  Referred to as      Listed as          Dialed as      Place
----------------    -----------------    ----------  -----------------
Two-five            LOcust 4-5678        LO 4-5678   Philadelphia, PA
Two-four            MArket 6789          MA 6789     Indianapolis, IN
1 letter, 4 or      Franklin 9-2345      F 9-2345    San Diego, CA
   5 digit          Franklin 6789        F 6789
Five digit          2-5678               2-5678      Binghamton, NY
Four digit          3456                 3456        Winchester, VA
Three digit         325                  325         Jamesport, NY

Combined 5 &        4-1234               4-1234      Des Moines, IA
  6 digit           62-2345              62-2345

 The remaining plans were combinations of the above:

   Combined two-four and two-five       Los Angeles, CA
   Combined two-five and five digit     El Paso, TX
   Combined four and five digit         Manchester, CT
   Combined three and four digit        Ayer, MA

    It would appear there was no instance of a single "6 digit" area.
And exchanges still have names -- however, the names are not used for
dialing purposes.  Interestingly, there are very few LEC records that
use NPA-NXX for identification of an exchange.  The name (or a
shorthand) is used instead.


Al Varney


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What you point out is true here in
the Chicago area. None of the IBT facilities are known as 312-whatever
where conversation among telco employees is concerned. They are all
known by the name of some one exchange within the building which was
there from fifty years ago, i.e. 'Irving' or 'Merrimac' or 'Newcastle'.
"What office do you work in?" ... "I'm in the Lakeview CO ..."   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:40:21 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Number History


This responds to the Moderator's Note.

I don't have the information in front of me, but I do NOT think
Atlantic City, NJ uses prefixes of the form 28x.  There ARE prefixes
there of form 34x.  (It's in area 609, which arrived in late 1950s[?].
There is a 201-285 nowadays in Morristown, NJ, but I don't know how
old it is.)  There are several exchanges which retained the place
name, with many of them in the NYC area.

I have never before heard of 7D calling across the state line between
Illinois and Indiana at Chicago; I take it this is very old.  (I did
see 7D calling in a Wilmington [Del.] call guide from some Wilmington
prefixes to metro Philadelphia area, although the flate rate area was
only in Delaware.  I think it was later when local calling from
Wilmington was extended into Pennsylvania, and such is still 7D today;
rest of Phila. metro area requires 1+NPA+7D to reach from Delaware,
and there has been a 328 at Swarthmore, PA for years, duplicating 328
at New Castle, Delaware.)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Atlantic City *did* have "ATLantic
City" exchanges a long time ago. Regards 7D between Hammond/Whiting/East
Chicago, Indiana and Chicago, Illinois, yes, this is quite old.
Hammond had dial service beginning about 1956 or so; Chicago numbers
were just dialed 7D, and vice-versa. Whiting subscribers asked the
operator for the seven digit number (no reference needed to 'Chicago')
or the seven digit number in Hammond and the Whiting operator *touchtoned*
the number. I remember being amazed at how fast the beep-beep-bloop tones
went out. From Chicago we could dial Hammond numbers as 7D but we were not
to ask the local operator for Whiting numbers. We could do that, but the
policy was to dial 711 and talk to the Whiting operator direct. Or maybe
not ... maybe we were to call the local operator and *she* dialed 711 to
place the call, thus the phraseology 'Whiting' when the distant operator
answered; it is more likely operators would say this to each other rather
than to the subscriber. All of northern Indiana used to be under Illinois
Bell rather than Indiana Bell until about twenty years ago. A historian
who has written quite a bit about northern Indiana and Standard Oil's
relationship to the area has reminded me that until sometime in the
1920's (when Illinois Bell was created out of the old Chicago Telephone
Company) that phone service in Whiting was handled by Standard Oil at
the refinery switchboard. Whiting always was a 'company town' just like
Gary, Indiana. The Whiting Refinery has been around since 1890. When
Whiting had its own phone directory (it has been merged into one for
northern Indiana for several years) the entire directory was all of
seven or eight pages with the listings for Standard Oil taking up about
half the book. They've had centrex now for a few years on their own
exchange with the rest of Whiting keeping the old 659 numbers.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #60
*****************************


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