DP Tool Club 15/CD_ASCQ_15_070894.iso/vrac/tc14_263.zip/TC14-263.TXT

Text File | 1994-06-07 | 31KB | 665 lines

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 1 Jun 94 13:21:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 263

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: FCC Seeks Further Comments on 0+ Billed Party Preference (Doug Reuben)

    Re: Some D-Day Telecom History (Andrew C. Green)
    Re: DID Loophole or I'm Screwed up? (Alan Leon Varney)
    Re: Cordless Phone Wanted With Ten Mile Range (Ken Thompson)
    Re: Cordless Phone Wanted With Ten Mile Range (Ed Ellers)
    Re: Cellular Billing (John R. Levine)
    Re: Name and Address -> Long Distance Companies (Mike King)
    Re: Internet Access at Home? (Laurence Chiu)
    Re: Replace POST-MAIL by FAX (Chris Barr)
    Re: Money Talks (Daryl R. Gibson)
    Re: LD Carrier's Message Delivery Service (Mark E. Daniel)

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:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** 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 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: [e-mail] (Cid Technologies)
Subject: Re: FCC Seeks Further Comments on 0+ Billed Party Preference
Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 14:32:21 PDT


On Mon May 30, 1994, [e-mail] writes:

[post about how the FCC wants to implement a system where your calling
card is linked to your default Long Distance carrier for 0+ calls from
payphones, hotels, other phones, etc. omitted]

> That just great, lay off thousands from OSP companies.  Destroy an
> entire inudstry, just because a couple of people can't figure out
> 10xxx?

This reminds me of a windshield wiper guy I "met" upon driving into
NYC one day. He came to my car, attempted to "clean" my windshield,
and when I indicated that it was not in his best interests to do so,
he said something like "Hey, if I didn't do this I'd be stealing and
robbing people".

Now I don't mean to equate AOS firms and what the poster calls OSP
firms with the guy in the above example (much...;) ), but come on!
Does the poster mean to assert that AOSs should be allowed to continue
ripping off the general public just so we can continue to employ their
(not all too friendly) employees?

The main reason the industry exists is because most people (rightly or
wrongly) just don't have the technical background, desire, or even the
time to try to figure out how to use 10XXX dialing or 800 access
methods prior to getting burned by a $5 local call billed to a Bell
Calling Card.

This is how most AOS firms make money -- they "service" a generally
captive audience at private payphones, hotels, colleges, etc., and
rake up an outrageous surcharge because the caller didn't know to use
a 10xxx code or an 800# to access his or her preferred LD carrier.
There are many COCOTs and hotels which either totally block 10XXX
access, or do things like disable the keypad after "X" digits to make
it difficult to use another carrier. (Yes, I know, blocking is
illegal, yet it's still done.  Many COCOTs also block 800-321-0288,
etc ...)

I'm not going to go into the problems with most AOS firms; they've
been discussed widely here in the Digest. What I will say is that when
you subscribe to an LD carrier at home or at your office, you or your
company probably wants to use that same LD carrier on the road, etc.
If not, there are plenty of OSPs which provide VERY reasonable Calling
Card service through both 0+ and 800 access, many without any surcharge
at all.  What most people probably DON'T want is to be billed by a
company which they don't normally do business with, at a rate which
they are not used to paying, just because some AOS or OSP agreed to
pay the owner of a given phone a kickback for using them.

What I and I think (hope?) other Calling Card users want to know is
exactly what they will pay before making a call. We also do not want
to be forced to go through some silly procedure (which can vary from
phone to phone, adding to the confusion) in order to assure that we
will get billed by the correct company.

> Plus we the consumer will have to come up with millions to fund
> Bill Party Preference.  Then as consumers were going to have to
> subsidize it too.  If you want my opion it's just simplier to dial
> 1-800-COLLECT or 1-800-CALL-ATT.

I have seen no figures on the cost of BPP, so I can't comment on that,
but whatever it is I'm sure it's considerably less than what AOS firms
rip off from American consumers over the period of a year.

If OSPs and AOSs are so great, then why fear BBP? I'm sure *SO* many
people will all of a sudden notice a great void in their lives (yet no
longer in their wallets!) that they will all rush out to get the 10XXX
codes for their favorite AOS and OSP so they can use them instead of
their preferred carrier. So you AOs have nothing to fear, of course,
because you all provide such a great service that everyone will just
go out of their way to start using you once BBP comes into effect!

Let me make myself clear: I think that AOSs, and to a lesser extent
OSPs like Sprint (who has (had?) a 0+ system in place ONLY to get
AT&T/Bell card calls and which doesn't service their OWN customers)
are illegitimate business, and need to be removed. They prey on the
ignorance of the general public, and charge a large markup for
unquestionably inferior service. In the case of Sprint, MCI, et. al.
who have 0+ service just to capture AT&T/Bell traffic, they migrate
customers who normally use AT&T to use *their* service, causing
billing confusion and reducing the number of calls which an AT&T
customer can apply to his or her savings plan (or business WATS
Calling Card plan).

Billed Party Preference is an EXCELLENT idea -- it will force slimey
AOS firms out of business, and make MCI, Sprint, AT&T and anyone else
who wants to play compete more aggressively for your business. If they
want your business, they will have to provide you with something
better than your preferred carrier (lower rates, lower surcharge,
etc.) in order to get you to use them. Who knows, it may even bring
into the market a 0+ OSP with no calling card surcharge and rates in
line with standard direct dial rates.

But whatever the case may be, anything which lessens consumer
confusion in the industry and removes the "hold" which AOSs still seem
to have over many calling card users will be a positive step. I am
sympathetic to the actual people who will lose their jobs at AOS firms
as a result of this, but as for the AOSs themselves, well, the sooner
we are rid of these outfits the better.


Doug CID Technologies   [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 17:52:11 CDT
From: Andrew C. Green <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Some D-Day Telecom History


Donald E. Kimberlin <[e-mail]> writes:

> First, there are lots of recordings of bits of Edward R. Murrow from
> London during the blitz, as well as other correspondents like Richard
> C. Hottelet dating back to before D-Day.

 ... and our Moderator notes:

> An organization here in Chicago is planning a complete historical
> re-inactment of D-Day for later this month.

This might be a good time to mention the rebroadcasts of news
bulletins from D-Day and days following it, planned for upcoming
Saturday afternoon radio broadcasts of "Those Were the Days", hosted
by Chuck Schaden on WNIB-FM 97.1 here in Chicago, each Saturday
afternoon from 1 to 5 p.m. A large portion of the material is also
syndicated nationwide, so it may be available in other cities on or
around the same dates. (I believe the syndicated programs are hosted
by Art Fleming, but I can't swear to that.)

For some time now, Chuck has been rebroadcasting the CBS World News
from fifty years ago each Saturday afternoon, almost to the day. These
braodcasts give a good impression of the state of radio at that time,
and how reports were assembled, recorded, transmitted or shipped. The
broadcast itself, uncut and with wartime commercials for Admiral
radio, appears to have been recorded on transcription discs, basically
really big records. The majority of each broadcast is concerned with
the war effort, of course, and almost always features interviews with
the troops. These interviews are presumably genuine, but it is
painfully obvious that both reporter and subject are reading their
comments from a printed script; presumably the interview had to be
written down and approved by a censor for broadcast, at which point
the two people would sit at a microphone and read their remarks all
over again.

Again just guessing here, I get the distinct impression that those
man-in-the-trench recordings were made in Europe on disc, then shipped
to the states for broadcast, since in some programs they have run what
sound like phoned-in reports, usually from the Pacific. These reports
are always introduced with the cautionary phrase, "Following a short
delay, we will take you to" (so-and-so reporting from somewhere). And
sure enough, there is a pregnant pause of five seconds or so before
the on-site correspondent gets going. I have no idea what the pause
was for; I have visions of engineers at a cord board somewhere madly
yanking on plugs and switching phone lines as fast as they can ...


Andrew C. Green           [phone]
Datalogics, Inc.          Internet: [e-mail]
441 W. Huron
Chicago, IL  60610-3498   FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 11:38:59 +0600
From: [e-mail] (Alan Leon Varney)
Subject: Re: DID Loophole or I'm Screwed up?
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


In article <[e-mail]> Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
writes:

   [I originally wrote]

>>> Per FCC Part 68 and TELCo tariffs, anything other than audible
>>> ring and busy tone (with some exceptions) is "meaningful" -- and
>>> the call must be supervised (answered).

>> I thought it was OK for a PBX to issue an intercept without
>> returning supervision.  For example, "The extension you dialed
>> does not exist.  Please call xyx-xxyy for assistance."  Do these
>> messages have to be supervised?

    "... have to be ..." is an interesting phrase in a world of
standards, requirements, regulations, tariffs and shady PBX operators.

> My office has Centrex service.  As lines are not used, they return
> exactly that type of message, referring people to our main switchboard.
> I would assume that it is permitted to provide an unsupervised announcement
> since I believe the message does not supervise.

   I hesitate to quote old material, but if everyone keeps in mind
that it is from 1992 (and that I am not a lawyer or FCC lackey) I'll
proceed ...

   From 10-1-92 Edition of 47 CFR (FCC), Part 68:

   Section 68.314  Billing protection
(a) Call Duration Requirements.... (no data for 2 seconds after answer)
(b) ... on-hook power ... (no on-hook transmission)
(c) ... loop current on answer ... (maintain current for 5 seconds)
(d) ... signaling interference ... (no blue-boxing)
(e) ... AIOD ... (no lying about numbers)
(f) ... on-hook signals for digital connections (no on-hook transmission)
(g) ... off-hook signals for digital connections (hold off-hook for 5 seconds)
(h) DID requirements
  (1) Answer supervision for DID calls ... through a PBX or similar system
      shall be returned ... on all calls:
     (i) Answered by called DID station
     (ii) Answered by attendant
     (iii) Routed to an announcement, except for "number invalid", "not in
           service" or "not assigned" recordings
     (iv) Routed to a dialing prompt, or
     (v) Routed back to the public switched network by the PBX, including
         calls routed to [above announcements].
  (2) DID calls which do not require the PBX to return answer supervision
      are those:
     (i) Which are not routed back to the public switched network and,
         in addition, are:
       (A) Unanswered (the called DID station is alerted and does not
           answer, or the DID station o which the call is forwarded
           is alerted but does not answer)
       (B) Routed to busy signal
       (C) Routed to a reorder signal, or
       (D) Routed to [above mentioned announcements]
     and those
     (ii) Which are routed back to the public switched network and, in
          addition, are:
       (A) Unanswered (called or forwarded station)
       (B) Routed to busy signal
       (C) Routed to a reorder signal.
  (3) Answer supervision on DID calls shall be provided in accordance with
      industry engineering standards [EIA RS-464, for example]
  (4) PBX and similar systems built after 1990 shall comply.  Earlier
      systems shall comply if newly installed or relocated by mid-1992.
      Such equipment must be reregistered if previously not compliant
      with paragraph (h).  Compliance ... shall require that ... it will
      return answer supervision in conformity with this rule in a manner
      which cannot be readily altered by software control or other user
      controlled media.
  (5) "similar systems" means key equipment, multifunction systems,
      multiplexers, and any equipment for which adopted industry standard
      signaling is the standard mode of returning answer supervision.

    [Originally written in 1980, amended in March 1982, Sept. 1982,
     again in Sept. 1982, Dec. 1984, July 1985, Jan. 1986, May 1986
     and Nov. 1990.]

   As CPE "users" try other means of avoiding being charged for
completed calls, I'm sure the regulations will evolve.  The PBX
interface extends the public network into the PBX, and relys on it to
be "honest".  Those manufacturers and/or users who abused this
interface in the past caused many of the above regulations to be
spelled out -- perhaps limiting other legitimate uses of withholding
answer supervision.  Unfortunately, the good users and applications
are saddled with the fruits of the shady ones.

   And I still can't believe the FCC ruling regarding international
call-back services, which are receiving a "free" service.


Al Varney

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

From: Ken Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cordless Phone Wanted With Ten Mile Range
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 08:27:38
Organization: AT&T Global Information Solutions


> Guorong Roger ([e-mail]) wrote:

>> Is there any kind of CORDLESS PHONE which can be used for ten to

>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There are, but they are not legal for use
>> in the USA. About the closest you can come to this legally in the USA is
>> to use a manual phone patch attached to a CB radio or some other type of
>> legal radio service. I have a phone patch here for example which I have

> The important point here is that the amateur radio service is for
> recreational non-commerial use only, and the hams tend to police
> themselves fairly well, especially in metro areas where the bands are
> crowded.  And, naturally, the phone co doesn't want people to bypass
> their cellular service.  So getting a legal ten mile phone is not
> easy.

Another note.  It is very illegal to use CB with phone patches.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It most certainly is *NOT* illegal to use
a phone patch with Citizen's Band radios. To be sure, there are lots of
more effecient ways of doing it these days, but it is not illegal. The
rules say in the case of CB, the process has to include an operator at
the base station to physically make the connection and key/unkey the
microphone. It cannot be an automated process. Where it gets to be a real
pain is due to the ignorance of the party receiving the call. Generally
they do not realize until it has been explained to them three or four
times that unlike a 'regular' phone call they are not on a full duplex
connection. It is useless for them to speak while the party on the
radio end is speaking or when they hear 'hash' or static in their ear.
They are only to speak when the base station operator tells them to
speak. Unlike a regular phone call, there have to be short, precise
sentences by the speakers on each end followed by a pause in speaking,
otherwise the base operator goes crazy trying to anticipate when to key
and unkey the microphone. Twenty years ago I used to do this to help the
expressway motorists in distress but I haven't fooled with CB for many
years other than my own personal handheld I use for fun sometimes.  PAT]

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

From: Ed Ellers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cordless Phone Wanted With Ten Mile Range
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 94 00:43:04 -0500
Organization: Delphi ([e-mail] email, 800-695-4005 voice)


sohl,william h <[e-mail]> writes:

> While that is possible, it can only be done legally within the
> constraints of the FCC regulations as per my comments above.
> Additionally, there is a frequency coordination process that must be
> followed to obtain a fixed set of assigned two meter frequencies to
> establish a permanent repeater which is the only way this could be
> done and still be legal on the amateur two meter band.

A minor correction to what Bill's saying -- it's no longer MANDATORY
to get coordination for an amateur repeater.  If you can find a
frequency pair you can use it, BUT if you cause interference to a
coordinated repeater you'll have to move or shut down.

Also, 2m isn't the only repeater band -- a ham who wants to set up his
own autopatch badly enough can do it on a higher band where open
frequency pairs are more likely to exist.

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

Date: Wed, 01 Jun 94 12:02:00 EDT
From: [e-mail] (John R Levine)
Subject: Re: Cellular Billing
Organization: I.E.C.C., Cambridge, Mass.


> Incidentally while I'm at the keyboard ... it's taken me a while to
> realise that US analogue cellular systems providers require you, the
> the phone owner and payer of the airtime bill, actually to pay for
> incoming calls. How the heck have they managed to convince people to
> go for that?!?

Given the way that billing works here, there isn't much choice.  We
don't have billing pulses, we record call detail information and
compute the charges at the time the bill is printed based on the
originating and terminating numbers, time of day, and any of the
15,000 special billing plans now available.

Our cellular numbers are integrated into the regular dialing plan, so
for example my car phone's numbers in Boston and Vermont are as far as
callers can tell regular local phone numbers.  The number in Vermont
is in 802-296, a prefix shared with wireline phones.  This means
there's no way for billing software to distinguish between calls to
cellular and calls to wireline numbers, so the cellular customer has
to pick up any extra charges beyond the normal call charge to his
number.

In a few places, the local phone company has a special prefix for
caller-pays cellular.  But there's no way to charge back the surcharge
to long distance callers.  (Remember, long distance and local service
are provided by separate companies, and the long distance company pays
a flat per-minute access charge to the local telco.)  Long distance
companies block calls to other surcharged numbers such as 976-XXXX
audio programs, so I expect that you won't be able to call a caller-pays
cellular number from out of the local area.  Depending on the cellular
customer's needs, this may be either an advantage or a disadvantage.

The 500 NPA is apparently being allocated to new wireless services,
and it may be possible that national caller-pays cellular numbers
could reside there.


Regards,

John Levine, [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: However John, why aren't cellular carriers
treated like any other telco or long distance carrier for the purpose of
intercompany billings and settlements. When we call between a telco one
place and some other telco elsewhere via a long distance carrier, the
whole thing is very transparent to the caller/called party. As we have
discussed in the 'combined billing' thread recently, you can write one
check to the telco and be done with it for all anyone cares. Why are
the cellular companies not part of the process as a routine thing?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike King)
Subject: Re: Name and Address -> Long Distance Companies
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 1994 06:33:07 PDT


In TELECOM Digest, V14, #256, TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to
Jonathan <[e-mail]>:

>> the rules currently say that local telcos may not withhold
>> name and address information from long distance carriers -- even if
>> the number is otherwise non-published -- for billing purposes.

They can now.

Someone else said:

> This is a security problem.  Customers should be allowed to block the
> delivery of their name and address information if they have non-published
> telephone numbers or non-listed addresses.  If a customer does this,

The FCC has decreed this.

Because a friend here in CA is being harrassed by Integratel over a
call he did not make, I'm not about to allow that to happen to me.  I
have a non-published number.  When P*B announced that I can prevent my
billing name and address from being released, I immediately signed for
the plan.  P*B's requirements include (1) a non-published number, (2)
collect and 3rd-party blocking, and (3) no P*B calling cards.  [Darn!
<g>] Should I wish to remove the restriction, I have to inform them in
writing.

I realize that I can call Integratel and ask to be added to their
blocking database, but I don't think it should be my responsibility to
search for every potential OCC to have my number added to their
blocking database.


Mike King    [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It isn't your responsibility, and in fact
historically -- back in the days when we had the Bell *System* (my
emphasis) -- you did do business with just one place, the local telco
business office. But the rules are different now. The carriers do not
cooperate with each other except when they feel it is in their best
interest to do so. The first rule in telephony these days is the customer
be damned!  I speak purely from a pragmatic approach: go around and
tell each of them what you want. It will get done that way (usually)
and with a minimum of effort on your part cleaning up messes later.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Laurence Chiu)
Subject: Re: Internet Access at Home?
Date: 01 Jun 1994 11:55:17 -0700
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access


In article <[e-mail]>, K. M. Peterson wrote:

> You didn't say much about what kind of setup you want and why.  You
> may be under the (mistaken) impression that the only dialup access is
> to a Un*x box, and running Un*x commands in a shell.  This isn't true:
> running PPP on my Mac, InterNews, Eudora (for mail), and a collection
> of other utilities gives me _identical_ access as if I were connected
> to an Ethernet connected to the 'Net, except for the speed of the
> connection.  And you pay for speed, eh PAT?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You sure do ... then you pay some
> more. PAT]

Well I have a SLIP connection to an Internet provider for which I pay
$30/month for 30 hrs and $1/hr over that. I chose to go with 14.4
modems even though the provider offers 28.8. I think if I got 28.8
working okay, then SLIP at that speed would be quite acceptable since
if you're using Mosaic or Cello to access WWW, much of the stuff
coming down is plain text which should benefit from modem data
compression. Mosaic at 14.4 is okay apart from the embedded GIF files
and trying to play those 900K MPEG movies :-)

As an aside I could get 24x7 SLIP for $90 I think.


Laurence Chiu             Walnut Creek, California
Tel: [phone] (work)  Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Chris Barr)
Subject: Re: Replace POST-MAIL by FAX
Organization: Entrepreneur's Source
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 1994 15:55:45 GMT


> ... I have been unable make fax software work reliably.  I have
> tried Delrina (the market leader) Winfax Pro 3.0 and 4.0 and Sofnet
> Faxworks Pro 3.0. None of these packages will reliably receive faxes.

Well, are the sends comparable to the receives?  i.e. as long and numerous
and to/from similar end points?  If so -- well, what's different?  You
might try using a lower speed, for starters.  Also I'd look at Delrina's
modem initialization string.

Is the phone line good?  Some 2nd phone lines use yellow & black wires in
a bundle with wires for the 1st line - crosstalk can disturb data calls.

> Details: I am using a Supra Fax Modem V.32bis which is on the approved
> list from both Delrina and Sofnet.  I upgraded to Supra's latest ROM
> to make sure that the modem wasn't at fault.

Supra has a nice reputation but still they're based on the Rockwell
chipset which has poorer line noise handling than US Robotics, Hayes
or Microcom.  See the modem newsgroup -- some users at sites with
multiple brands of modem report that Supras fail under noisy line
conditions which other brands can handle.

> I tried faxing a question to Delrina. ...

You sound like a glutton for punishment :-) I've gotten good help by
mailing/posting a problem on their Compuserve newsgroup (go delrina).
No BS about long descriptions of my situation, but I did include some
key details.

Please let us know how it turns out!


Chris

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

Date: Wed, 01 Jun 1994 10:38:11 (MST)
From: Daryl R. Gibson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Money Talks


> Along the roadside, a determined tourist trips over a cactus.
> She struggles up an embankment and through sagebrush to get past
> telephone poles and wires.  Finally, with camera in hand, she has an
> unobstructed view of Jenny Lake and the beautiful Teton Mountains.
> How often have you struggled to get just the right picture -- a photo
> without telephone wires to ruin a beautiful scene?

> This is "A-N-A's Money Talks."

All right. I'm being picky, but while money may talk, it's not too
accurate a conversationalist. This was obviously written by someone
who has never been to Jenny Lake. I can't think of more than a couple
of exposed wires inside the park. There are a few, but by and large,
everything's buried underground. I've yet to see cactus there, and
since Grand Teton's at an altitude of around 7,000 feet, temperatures
in the winter drop down to -20F and lower, and the area's covered by
several feet of snow through March. I was there once on January 1, and
the snow banks were much higher than I was.

As someone who intentionally photographs telephone and power wires and
structures occasionally, I know there are many ways to shoot a photo
without getting a wire in it. Of course, that hasn't kept me from
finding one in a frame, without realizing it was there when I shot it.

But there's nothing like a row of telephone poles paralleling a country
road at sunset, glass insulators shimmering in the sun to set a mood.

Admittedly, there aren't too many of those around anymore ...


Daryl
(801)378- 2950    [phone]
[e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 01 Jun 1994 04:13:46 EST
From: [e-mail] (Mark E Daniel)
Subject: Re: LD Carrier's Message Delivery Service


In article <[e-mail]> is written:

> MCI is offering one of these services via their calling cards, and in
> the three occasions I have tried it, all three parties have not
> received their messages.  In one case, the party may not have been
> home within the allotted eight hour time frame in which the call must

I just tried delievering a message on my voice line which has an
answering machine on it using Sprint's service.  It was in the middle
of the message by the time the machine started recording.  It did
however repeat the message from the begining after completeing it.  So
as long as the greeting isn't LOOOOONG you should have no problems.
Mine runs about ~20 seconds.  I guess they figure we're all capible of
leaving messages on answering machines ourselves. :) And they're
right.  But it would be nicew if they did it intellegently enough to
wait until the answeree stoped speaking before they delievered the
message.


Mark E Daniel                   (Loving SysOp of The Legend BBS)
Inet: [e-mail]   [e-mail] (Direct INet)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #263
******************************