Phoenix Rising BBS/phoenixrising.zip/phoenixrising/tele-dig/td14-017.txt

Text File | 1994-01-08 | 31KB | 696 lines

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 7 Jan 94 13:23:00 CST    Volume 14 : Issue 17

Inside This Issue:                         Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: SW-56 and ISDN Questions (Bruce Taylor)
    Re: SW-56 and ISDN Questions (Bill Halverson)
    Re: Best Remote Software? (Andy McKinsey)
    Re: California ANI Question (Steve Forrette)
    Re: California ANI Question (Jon Edelson)
    Re: Landlines Pay Airtime To Call Some Cellular Phones (Ronald Oakes)
    Re: Sucharge for Tone Dialing to be Dropped (Eric De Mund)
    Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous (Mark Crispin)
    Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous (A. Padgett Peterson)
    Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous (Alan Boritz)
    Re: Merlin Question (Steve Cogorno)
    Re: How are VCR Plus+ Numbers Generated (Kriston Rehberg)
    Re: Caller ID/911 Seattle and Article Recommendation (Alan Dahl)
    Re: Sprint (Dvorak) Modem Offer - Not Again! (Chris Ambler)
    Re: Sprint (Dvorak) Modem Offer - Not Again! (Alan T. Furman)

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

                 * [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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri,  7 Jan 1994 11:30:58 EST
From: Bruce Taylor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SW-56 and ISDN Questions


Dear Lenny,

  You questions are so broad that it would be nearly impossible to
answer with any accuracy.  But, since this is Usenet, I'll try :-)

> 1. Which countries/provinces have SW-56 service and are ISDN capable?

  1: Answer depends on which long distance carrier (IXC) that you use
to get to the countries.  In Europe, most countries are apparently
ISDN capable.  Getting there, on the other hand ...

> 2. Here in the US what cities have been converted to ISDN, and who are
> still operating at SW-56?

  2: Again, depends on the local exchange carrier, and the IXC as
well.  Most switched that are fully digital are ISDN capable.  The LEC
may not have a tariff for it, though.  This is not an exclusive
choice, though.  Pittsburgh has both ISDN and SW56 services available.

> 3. If you know, who are their carriers?

  3: Argh -- whose carriers?  Cities?  Not relevant.  There are LEC's
and IXC's.  In theory, any IXC can carry ISDN to any LEC.  Depends
greatly on which combination you're talking about.

  May I suggest: Talking with your college telecom group, your LEC (a
'Bell' company), and your IXCs (AT&T, MCI, Sprint, LCI, Wiltel, etc.).
They could help you in greater detail.


  Best wishes for your research,

Bruce Taylor   ([e-mail])    [phone]
New Projects Coordinator, Telecommunications, Carnegie Mellon University

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: SW-56 and ISDN Questions
Date: 6 Jan 94 18:56:44 GMT
Organization: Pacific * Bell


In article <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]> writes:

> Sirs: I'm a tech with Brown University in Providence RI.  My question
> is basic, yet important to our work here at Brown, perhaps you may be
> able to give me some direction to obtain the answers.

> 1. Which countries/provinces have SW-56 service and are ISDN capable?

Within the USA, these two services are considered to be "complementary",
in the sense they can coexist within a network.

> 2. Here in the US what cities have been converted to ISDN, and who are
> still operating at SW-56?

In California, Pacific Bell is offering both ISDN and SW-56.  Since
the service is hardware dependent, the prefix you get from the phone
company will determine whether the switch you receive dialtone from
provides either or both service.

Here is an 800 number you can call to find out what is availble in our
service territory:

                      800-995-0346

You need a touch-tone phone.  You will be able to find out what kind
of service is available based on the NPANXX combination you enter.

Hope this helps!!


Bill Halverson   Pacific Bell

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy McKinsey)
Subject: Re: Best Remote Software?
Date: 6 Jan 1994 10:14:03 -0800
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access  [phone]  [login: guest]


Joseph Ferguson ([e-mail]) wrote:

> I need a reliable remote software program that will actually run
> Windows. I use an Intel 400 at home and at work. Haven't had any luck
> trying PcTools Commute.  Do any of these remote programs run Windows?
> Thanks for any suggestions.

Try Reachout software from Ocean Isle software.
407/770-4777 Vero Beach, FL.
You can run windows over a dial up link or on a network.


Andy

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: California ANI Question
Date: 6 Jan 1994 19:29:28 GMT
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc.
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)


In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Josephson)
writes:

> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Forrette) writes:

>> ANI is not illegal in California.  As the Digest Editor noted, with
>> very few exceptions, if you can call an 800 number, the recipient can

> The CPUC tariff is the law. CPUC denied Pacific Bell's tariff filing
> that would have offered CNID. Only that which is tariffed is
> permissible.

What does the tariff filing on Caller ID have to do with 800 ANI?
(answer: nothing!)  800 ANI for inter-state calls is tariffed by the
FCC for all three of the Big Three IXC's.  Since 800 ANI is tariffed,
it is permissable.

> I wonder if the per-number (56# or whatever it was?) CNID blocking
> from here would block a INWATS ANI/CNID?

Not unless Caller ID blocking prevents you from making a 1+ long
distance call (which it doesn't).  There is no way to block 800 ANI
short of not calling the number.  Even the traditional methods of
blocking Caller ID do not work:

a) you can't call an 800 number by using a calling card;

b) calling through the Operator doesn't block your number (on AT&T,
operator assisted 800 calls still deliver the correct ANI to the
recipient, and other carriers do not have operator assisted 800
calls); or

c) calling over non-SS7 facilities, as SS7 is not required to support
800 ANI.  This is why it works for 99.5% of all calls.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jon Edelson)
Subject: Re: California ANI Question
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 15:10:16 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve
Forrette) writes:

> And there is blocking available -- if callers choose not to have me or
> my customers pay for their telephone calls (which is what they are
> doing when they call an 800 number), we will never get their number.
> I guess this is a form of per-call blocking :-) (I suppose you could
> even have per-line 800 ANI blocking if you got a toll restrictor and
> programmed it to block 800 numbers :-))

Yea!  Another service that the telephone company can offer to make
money.  800 number ANI blocking.  For a small monthly fee, your 800
calls will go through, but _you_ will have to pay for them.  In
exchange for actually paying for the service, your ANI will not be
transmitted.  The various carriers charge more per call, and split the
additional profit :-)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But they do this already. You simply
dial the regular ten digit number for the person or company; you pay
for the call; everyone is happy.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 14:59:37 CST
From: [e-mail] (Ronald Oakes)
Subject: Re: Landlines Pay Airtime To Call Some Cellular Phones
Organization: Motorola Cellular Infrastructure Group


In article <[e-mail]> John Levine writes:

>> Charging the land-line caller to a cellular number makes
>> perfect sense to me.

> In the abstract, it makes some sense.  On the other hand, surcharged
> numbers are a pain for callers, local telcos, and long distance
> carriers since the prices tend to be mysterious and the bills at the
> end of the month often an unpleasant surprise.  How long do you think
> it will take for someone to complain to US West "nobody told me that a
> call to 1-579 cost 65 cents* a minute"?  If it's as much as two days
> after the first bill is sent, I'll be surprised.  The day after that,
> people will demand 579 blocking, like 900 and 976 blocking.

There already is blocking for 1-579, and 1-976 blocking, at least for
people familiar with using telephones in Colorado, New Mexico and
other "civilized" parts of the country.  In these parts of the country
 -- assuming they are not pressured to change -- dialing a "1" before
a seven digit number, or after conversion the local area code, is a
clear and deliberate indication that the call is toll.  If you do not
know that, then you simply will receive a polite "please dial 1" or
"please dial 1 303" message when you attempt the call.

This simple solution removes many of the problems with charge calls
that become present when you allow seven digit toll calling.  This
would have prevented -- or at least lessened -- the New York pager
scam, and can reduce the problems with 976 numbers.

And for cellular services, unlike 900 and 976 like numbers, the charge
will probably be a flat rate, published in the phone book, or
available from the operator upon request.


Ronald B. Oakes

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 13:50:44 PST
From: Eric De Mund <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sucharge for Tone Dialing to be Dropped
Reply-To: Eric De Mund <[e-mail]>
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Genome Computing Group


People,

Dave Niebuhr <[e-mail]> in TELECOM Digest V14 #15:

> NYTel, as part of a multi-million dollar rate rollback has been
> ordered to reduce the cost of touch-tone dialing from $1.35 to $.50
> per month which is still not enough.

Given that backwards state of affairs, maybe my dad *is* telling me
the truth when he says that he can't even *get* touch-tone service at
his home in central Nassau County (Westbury), Long Island, New York,
telephone number (516) 333-xxxx. Incredible.

Can anyone confirm this?


Eric De Mund <[e-mail]>

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 13:44:47 PST
From: Mark Crispin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous


I just saw in an electronics toy catalog (Danmark or one of those) a
Caller ID box that implements something like Anonymous Call Rejection
as its own feature.  If you enable it, it automatically answers the
call and plays a refusal message, than hangs up.

What I see as different between this box and the telco's feature:

1) You don't have to beg the ACLU for this feature, after having begged them
   for CNID.
2) No monthly charge beyond the CNID.
3) You need to wire the box in series with all your extensions, otherwise you
   won't get the ring suppression on the other ones.
4) I doubt that it interacts well with Call Waiting.
5) The ability to set the refusal message (I don't know if this particular
   box has it, but doubtless others will).  Big win.

So, there are interesting tradeoffs.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Plus which, the call *supervises*, and
the scorned calling party gets to pay for a thirty second message telling
him his call is unwanted. :)  Some say that condition should be the
default on this sort of thing, but at least when the telcos do it they
can optionally toggle it either way.

I am reminded of this guy who had a phone line installed in a remote
area which he used only occassionally.  The number was never given
out, and he used it maybe once a week for a call or two, but he wanted
a phone available when he needed it. The first thing he noticed
following installation was how many wrong numbers this line was
getting; like three or four a day from all sorts of people who were
looking for someone or something else -- there was no set pattern to
the wrong numbers. He knew for a fact no one would ever call *him* on
that line because he never gave to the number to anyone for any
reason. His solution was to put a real cheap answering machine on the
line with an outgoing message which said, "You have reached a wrong
number. For your convenience, this line is answered 24 hours per day
by this recording. The person or company you are seeking is not at
this number. Because of your carelessness in dialing, you have been
charged for this call. Goodbye." <click>  He later said the funny
part was how many people paid absolutely no attention and at the tone
went ahead and recorded their airline reservations, questions for
customer service, requests for songs to be played on the radio, etc.
A few did actually listen and take note of the message; many of those
chose to respond with anonymous (of course) obscene incoming messages,
some made sounds into the phone which resembled belching or passing
of 'gas', a couple were gales of hysterical laughter, etc. He finally
changed his outgoing message on that line referring to it as the
"Telephone Company Wrong Number Respository".

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 16:45:55 -0500
From: [e-mail] (A. Padgett Peterson)
Subject: Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous


> Does anyone actually have Anonymous Call Rejection in service now?  Is
> it useful?  It impresses me as one of those features which you get for
> about a week, then get rid of because it's utterly worthless.

I can see a very valid use -- computer modem lines. On my dial-ups I
use Caller-ID to validate the caller before permitting connections. If
the CNID is blocked, I just do not answer the phone but the line is
still occupied until the caller hangs up. Even if I did not have CNID,
I doubt that many people would be willing to use a Demon Dialer if
they could not block CNID since they would not *know* if I were
logging.

It certainly would put a crimp in annoyance calls that rely on
anomynity.


Warmly,

Padgett

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

Subject: Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous
From: drharry![e-mail] (Alan Boritz)
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 94 06:42:56 EST
Organization: Harry's Place BBS - Mahwah NJ - [phone]


[e-mail] (John R Levine) writes:

> Does anyone actually have Anonymous Call Rejection in service now?

I've had the function working for a good part of a year, but with the
Colonial Data Technologies "Block The Blocker" CNID box.  Works like a
charm. ;)

NJ Bell sent out a flyer on 1/1/94 to all of their CNID customers
announcing CNID privacy block (*67) and anonymous call rejection
(*77).  However, it also added that the call rejection feature would
not be available in some areas for a while.

> It impresses me as one of those features which you get for
> about a week, then get rid of because it's utterly worthless.  Perhaps
> I'm suffering from a failure of imagination, but I find it difficult
> to understand the mindset of people who are too scared to answer the
> phone if they don't know in advance who the call is from.

Then you probably don't receive a lot of calls from telemarketing
idiots and nosy scam artists.  We go through periods at work when
we're inundated with those, and calls from telemarketing machines (our
exchanges are low numbers in the 201 area).  Telemarketing calls are
an enormous time-waster, and more than half of the investment scam
callers are pushy and rude.  Invade my privacy at home with a useless
sales pitch AND hide your CNID from me and I'll redefine the word
"rude" for you. ;)

If you're hiding your identity from me (privacy block), then I don't
want to talk to you.  My time is worth more than yours (anonymous
caller, that is) and I don't appreciate it being wasted.

> People who are concerned about annoyance callers should consider Call
> Block, which lets you enter a list of numbers from which you won't
> receive calls.

That Class feature only handles ten numbers, maximum (and can handle
privacy-blocked numbers), and has to be manually programmed.  That's
not a solution, except for the most obnoxious and uninventive abusive
callers (those who can't figure out that they could pick up ANOTHER
un-blocked phone to call you).


[e-mail]  or  uunet!drharry!aboritz
Harry's Place BBS (drharry.UUCP) - Mahwah NJ USA - [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Cogorno)
Subject: Re: Merlin Question
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 14:13:36 PST


Said by: Vince Dugar

> Why does the Merlin system charge users so much (I forget now, but
> it's a lot) to buy a special modem adapter?  Is there a cheaper
> solution?  What about using an acoustic modem? (only want it for
> CompuServe mail handling, so low baud would be OK)

Sure -- instead of buying a BTMI or Data Adapter, you can wire your
modem straight into the demarc point (bypass the Merlin altogether).
Of course, this will prevent you from using Merlin Features, but if you
want to play you gotta pay :-)


Steve    [e-mail]
#608 Merrill * 200 McLaughlin Drive * Santa Cruz, CA 95064-1015

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

Subject: Re: How are VCR Plus+ Numbers Generated
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 94 17:51:16 EST
From: [e-mail]


In [e-mail]'s message of 5 Jan 1994 16:40:08 -0800 was written:

> Dan Cromer ([e-mail]) wrote:

>> remotes, generated.  I bought a new VCR for my folks in Lakeland, FL,
>> to make it easy for them to set up the VCR for recording, but the VCR
>> Plus+ codes aren't listed in their newspaper.  I'd like to be able to

> I could have sworn that Toshiba or possibly Mitsui has a remote
> control device which has thumbwheel switches for day of week, date,
> time, and channel number, so that a person can read across the front
> of the unit, "Monday - 7th - 7:00 to 7:30 - pm - channel 4" and be
> done with the confusion.  Has anyone seen one of these?

Yah, modern Panasonic VCR's with VCR/Plus has a thumwheel on the
remote control which lets you cycle through the days.

It also has a meager explanation of VCR/Plus and lets you graphically
program the channel positions into the VCR so that it will
automatically know which channel is which.  It had some kind of
cross-reference listing on it as to which channels go where so that
the codes might actually work for your local cable system.

Prevue Guide (the TV-Guide channel that allows the cable system to
automatically select the preview commercials based on your area's
channels) also provides VCR plus on almost all the programs in the
commercial section, and at least some of them in the program listing
section.  Pretty cool, if you ask me.  But I'm not among those
millions of people who can't program something as simple as a VCR.
Come to think of it, just setting up this Panasonic VCR for VCR/Plus
would give this kind of person a coronary.


Kris

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

From: [e-mail] (Alan Dahl)
Subject: Re: Caller ID/911 Seattle and Article Recommendation
Date: 6 Jan 1994 23:28:49 GMT
Organization: McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve
Forrette) writes:

> In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (M. Hedlund) writes:

>> I also saw a news piece about 911 technology and cellular phones,
>> saying that Caller-ID/Signalling System Seven had speeded response to
>> home calls (as discussed) but that only _some_ systems could ID
>> cellular phones -- Seattle was mentioned as considering cellular-
>> Caller ID to improve 911.  Apologies if this overlaps a thread I
>> missed, but anyone in Seattle with info?

> I have cellular accounts with both of the Seattle carriers: US West
> Cellular and Cellular One.  At least when calling 800 numbers, the US
> West Cellular system will report my actual cellular number as the ANI,
> whereas Cellular One reports a non-dialable number that's common on
> all subscribers.  Since 911 systems are often implemented using
> operator-service trunks, I would imagine that the 'correct ANI'
> feature of the US West system would also work with 911, although I
> don't have any specific knowledge that this is the case.  As far as
> Cellular One goes, they could implement 911 ANI with some sort of
> special data line to the PSAP, without converting to full ANI for all
> outbound calls.  One benefit of the US West Cellular ANI situation is
> that it allows me to select any IXC that's generally available via
> Equal Access as my default carrier for the cellular phone.

The problem, of course, with using ANI with cellular numbers for
enhanced-911 is that it only gives the 911 people some of the
information they need. It will give them your cell number (assuming
that the ANI works correctly) so they can try calling back if the
number is disconnected but there is no way for them to translate this
number into a location since the cellular phone could be anywhere.

With normal 911 the phone number is translated to a street address,
and since houses (with the possible exception of mudslides in LA :-)
rarely move, the 911 operator (and thus the police/fire
department/whatever) can be relatively sure that that's where you're
calling from so that help can be dispatched to the right address if
you are unable to communicate.

With a cellular phone the information that is _really_ needed is the
cell site that the phone is communicating with. This could, in turn,
be translated to a street address that would at least get the police
to within a thousand feet or so of your location in the event you are
cut off, don't know where you are or are unable to communicate.

You can imagine the frustration of a 911 operator talking to a child
over a cell phone (say, after a car accident) where the child may be
unable to explain where the car is and the 911 operator helpless to
narrow down the location at all without help from the cellular
provider (and a lot of valuable time lost).

Coming up with a way to communicate cell site address to the 911
operator is non-trivial and will probably take a fair amount of effort
to implement. Since I don't work on that side of the company I'll let
someone else explain the technological challenges.

I understand (from what I read in the papers, I don't know anything
even remotely official) that McCaw is committed to delivering this
functionality within the next couple of years.


Alan Dahl
Axys Development Team                           [e-mail]
McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc.             Phone: [phone]
P.O. Box 97060                                  Fax:   [phone]
Kirkland, WA 98083-9760

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

From: [e-mail] (Chris Ambler - Fubar)
Subject: Re: Sprint (Dvorak) Modem Offer - Not Again!
Organization: The Phishtank
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 1994 02:01:44 GMT


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well now, that's very gracious and generous
> of you to agree to take that extra modem off his hands. :)  Meanwhile,
> back in California, I am wondering what is going on with the lawsuit against
> Sprint the guys were starting based on alleged misrepresentations of the
> product being shipped, etc.  Can anyone bring us up to date on that side
> of it?   PAT]

Certainly!

I have received from Sprint a letter from their agent here in
California informing me that they are the proper people to serve. The
papers have been made out accordingly. I am in the process of
receiving legal advice on my claim, and should be filing this month.
I'm being very careful about what I'm doing so as to not make any
mistakes. I want this to be as "fair" a case as possible, at least
from my end. And, since I know that Sprint reads this group (since
they were able to quote me my own words on the phone from a post
here), a hearty hello to them as well, expect me to file shortly. This
has been a learning experience for me if nothing else, I've come to
understand how the law works in these cases, and believe I have a very
strong case. I look forward to its resolution. Meanwhile, the modems
sit, sealed and unopened, in a cool dry safe place, awaiting their day
in court :-)

Pat, might I ask you the easiest way for me to scan the archives for
all messages posted on this subject? I have been advised that I should
have them all handy, since Sprint will most likely have the same.


Christopher();    // All original text is strictly the opinion of the poster
Christopher J. Ambler, Author, FSUUCP 1.42, FSVMP 1.0, [e-mail]
Ozric Tentacles Mailing List: [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you get the index to subjects and
authors in the Digest for volume 13 from the Telecom Archives, use the
Unix command 'grep' to search for the words 'Sprint' and 'modem' in
the same subject line. If you use the Telecom Archives Email Information
Service, one of the commands available to you is SEARCH and you would
search for those same keywords. The results would be returned by email
and you would then order the issues of the Digest referenced in the
index. As a practical matter however, the majority of the discussion went
on during September through November, and you could just pull all the
back issues from that period and scan the indexes given at the start
of each issue (if you get the Digest format rather than c.d.t.).

Also, are you *sure* those modems are sitting in their original
unopened boxes in a cool, dry place? Have you fellows been playing
with your new toys? I am reminded of this dude twenty years ago who
used to buy CB radios from Radio Shack at a time when CB's were easily
modified to install an additional 250 channels and with luck oscillate
clear up in ten meters. He'd buy the radios and modify them, then
resell them to folks. Naturally, once in awhile there'd be an accident.
He'd mess up something, ie, the radio would blow up. In that case,
he'd scrap all the internals he wanted -- the chips, etc -- for spares
to use elsewhere and he would *carefully* put the unit back together
otherwise, *carefully* repackage the remains and take it back to Radio
Shack to complain the unit was defective.

Now the RS clerks didn't pay any attention; they'd just swap him out
and send the 'defective' unit back through the system to their regional
center. Over time the 'defective' CB would find its way back to the factory
in Korea (Hong Kong? China?) where it was made. Just imagine the scene:
the Chinese factory workers open the radio and look inside. As they
look closer, they squint their eyes and proclaim, "Holy $%^%# ... look
at this! No master crystal, no trim-pots, no final ... how did this
thing pass quality control and get out of here to start with!" ... :). PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Sprint (Dvorak) Modem Offer - Not Again!
Date: Thu,  6 Jan 94 21:17:45 PST


> I was one of those who, a few months ago, ordered Sprint LD service
> while under the impression that I would get *one* external 9600 baud
> *data* modem with FAX.  After speaking with the post-offer Sprint
> staff, I accepted the internal 2400 baud data and 9600 baud fax modem.

> Now the problem -- I just got a second modem in the mail!  Exactly the
> same as the first.  All I have is an 818 area code phone number for
> Best Data, so I don't want to call them back; it came UPS, so I can't
> just throw it in the mail with REFUSED scribbled all over it.  I doubt
> the Sprint rep's will be able to help.  Now what?

Look at it this way: You now have a total of 4800 bits/sec of data
bandwidth.  It is not yet 9600, but you are halfway there.


Alan Furman


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What's he supposed to do, wire them in
parallel somehow and process the data through each at twice the
speed or something?  Ha ha ha ... :)   Poor Sprint ... I'll bet they
cuss everytime they see this thread come back to life here. I know
they rue the day some brainy person in their marketing department ever
thought up the promotion. What was that nice lady's name who went to
all the trouble of calling each person trying to get it straightened
out?  And now, just when they thought the long nightmare was over ...  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #17
*****************************