Software Vault: The Diamond Collection/The Diamond Collection (Software Vault)(Digital Impact).ISO/cdr16/tc14_408.zip/TC14-408.TXT

Text File | 1995-01-22 | 35KB | 836 lines

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 10 Nov 94 01:57:00 CST    Volume 14 : Issue
408

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A.
Townson

    Re: Caller-Charging 800 Numbers Should be *Banned* (Wes
Leatherock)
    Re: Caller-Charging 800 Numbers Should be *Banned* (Mike King)
    MCI's 1-800-CALL-GOD (Steve Kass)
    Re: Charging for 800 Calls (was Re: 1-800-CALL-INFO) (Andrew
Laurence)
    Re: Caller-Charging 800 Numbers Should be *Banned* (jwm)
    Re: 1-800-CALL-INFO (Eric Paulak)
    Re: Caller Charging 800 Numbers Should be *Banned* (Lauren
Weinstein)
    Re: T-1 is Much Better Than Frame Relay (Matthew P. Downs)
    Re: What Does *67 do? (Matthew P. Downs)
    Re: T1 -> 24 x v.32 -> RS232 (Robert Mah)
    Re: Need Amp to Boost DTMF Strength (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Help With Ring Detector Circuit (John Lundgren)
    Re: NANP Nightmare (Bob Schwartz)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the
moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available 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]
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 94 06:44:12 GMT
Subject: Re: Caller-Charging 800 Numbers Should be *Banned*


 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:

       ... [text deleted] ...

 > Unfortunatly, the established method of getting directory
assistance
 > (by dialing areacode-555-1212) is monopolized by AT&T and the
telcos
 > who properly suck up to them. No matter who you have as your
 > presubscribed long distance carrier, what happens when you dial
 > areacode-555-1212? Well, your call goes to AT&T and they charge you
 > 75 cents!  So MCI is charging 75 cents just like AT&T, for two
 > requests just like AT&T, but how are they supposed to get access?
I
 > guess they could go on 900 and do it, but the trouble with 900 is
its
 > rotten reputation these days.  Maybe they could use 700 (since all
 > carriers get to use the entire 700 space as they wish).    PAT]

         Pat, I'm puzzled by your statement that directory assistance
calls all go by AT&T.  As a retired Southwestern Bell employee who
fielded many complaints when charging for toll directory assistance
began, I believe I became pretty familiar with calls to NPA-555-1212
and how they work.

         The directory assistance base is maintained by the LEC.  A
call to NPA-555-1212 is switched by any carrier just like any other
call to a seven-digit number, and routes at the terminating area code
to an LEC directory assistance operator.  The LEC charges the IXC a
fixed amount (I believe it used to be 45 or 50 cents, but I don't
recall for sure and it may have changed in the last two or three
years).  The IXC can charge their customers whatever they wish or have
tariffed, or can waive the charge if the customer then completes a
call to the same area code.

         I have a various times been PIC'd to AT&T, MCI and Sprint, as
well as carrying their credit cards.  I have also been a user of 10XXX
codes, for comparative purposes or just for the heck of it.  The
billing for NPA-555-1212 calls has always been from the carrier I was
using at the time, whether the PIC'd carrier or the 10XXX carrier or
the credit card carrier.

         In fact, I remember my last Sprint credit card bill had an
entry for a call from Tulsa (area code 918) to 405-555-1212,
immediately followed by a call to a number in Enid, Oklahoma (also in
the 405 area and, as a matter of fact, the number I had just gotten by
calling 405-555-1212.)  As I say, the call to 405-555-1212 showed on
my Sprint bill with a charge of ".00".

         I've never had an AT&T charge for a call to NPA-555-1212
unless AT&T was the carrier I was using at the time; in fact, I first
started using MCI experimentally because their charge for a call to
NPA-555-1212 was marginally less than AT&T's (5 cents cheaper, I
believe).


Wes Leatherock
[e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But *what company* actually serviced
the
call?  What company responded to you?  Whose operators were talking to
you?  In other words, if there is a telephone sitting somewhere with
the
number 555-1212 on the front of it, who is sitting there answering the
calls?  I believe it is AT&T in most or all cases. Have you forgotten
how in the early days of competition MCI used to advise its customers
to
'use AC-555-1212 for directory because it is free, then after you get
the number place your call via MCI' ?   Have you forgotten how the
main
reason AT&T quit giving free directory assistance -- a tradition for
many, many years since the beginning of the phone itself -- was
because
all the come-latelys were getting AT&T to do the lookups for free
while
they in turn got the revenue for the call itself?

Certainly, if you subscribe to MCI/Sprint/whoever you get billed by
whoever ... but that is because the prime source of the information,
that
is, AT&T bills *them* just like it bills its own customers, and they
in
turn pass along the charge. That's all that's happening. So I still
maintain that 555-1212 is still an AT&T monopoly: you can purchase the
information direct from them (by default if their customer) or you can
purchase the information *resold to you* by one of their competitors
who
obtains it for you transparently when you dial 555-1212 via one of the
competitors. If some other carrier wants to run their own database --
not
just buy and immediatly resell AT&T to you, they have to use some
other
number to do it on, since 555-1212 latches right into the AT&T
centers.
Did you think that somehow MCI and the others intercept calls to 555-
1212
and do their own thing with it? Not hardly ... so if MCI wants to
collect its own data from whatever sources and sell its own data --
not
just resell AT&T -- what telephone number should they use?    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike King)
Subject: Re: Caller-Charging 800 Numbers Should be *Banned*
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1994 00:52:27 GMT


In TELECOM Digest V14 #401, Pat wrote:

> Unfortunatly, the established method of getting directory assistance
> (by dialing areacode-555-1212) is monopolized by AT&T and the telcos
> who properly suck up to them. No matter who you have as your
presubscribed
> long distance carrier, what happens when you dial areacode-555-1212?
> Well, your call goes to AT&T and they charge you 75 cents!  So MCI
is

Um, Pat, I'm presubscribed to Sprint, and if I dial 1+NPA+555-1212, as
1long as the NPA is outside my LATA, the call is completed and billed
by Sprint.

It has worked that way for me ever since Equal Access, with service in
three different RBOCS.

At one time, AT&T would "forgive" up to two inter-LATA 555 calls a
month, as long as two or more inter-LATA calls were placed via AT&T.
I don't know if that's still true.  I remember that for a long time,
1+NPA+555 calls could be made for free from public (LEC) pay phones,
presumably because charged calls were also being completed from those
phones.  I never bothered to try from a COCOT.


Mike King    [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Read my earlier reply. You dial 555-
1212
and Sprint connects to an *AT&T directory assistance center somewhere*
and you get your information. AT&T bills Sprint, Sprint bills you. As
an experiment try dialing various AC-555-1212 and see how, as often as
not the call is picked up with 'AT&T' as part of the answer phrase,
regardless of which carrier you used to get there. Correct me if I am
wrong.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1994 00:09:55 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: MCI's 1-800-CALL-GOD


> From page 20 of my Bell Atlantic Morris County July 1994 -June 1995
telephone directory:

"800 Service"
There is no charge to you when you call
"800" telephone numbers
- - - - - - -
To call an "800" number, dial
1 + 800 + 7-digit number

Something is indeed wrong when "900" service providers must disclose
phone-bill charges in the call, but not "800" providers.


Steve Kass/ Drew U/ [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Laurence)
Subject: Re: Charging for 800 Calls (was Re: 1-800-CALL-INFO)
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700
guest)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1994 05:44:34 GMT


Barry Margolin <[e-mail]> writes:

> Imagine a law office that provides an 800 number, to make it easier
> for clients to reach them from out of state.  If I use that number
to
> call my lawyer, I wouldn't be surprised to be billed later for the
> time that we spent on the phone.

> The kicker is that I would also expect to be billed for the time if
I
> called their normal number.  In fact, I would expect the bill to be
> the same in either case -- I'm paying for the lawyer's time, not the
> phone service.

But most law firms attempt to capture long-distance calls made on
behalf of a client and bill them to the client as case expenses
(distinct from legal fees). If you called the 800 number, the law firm
advanced those costs on your behalf and would likely bill you for
them, whereas if you called the regular number, YOU paid those charges
out of your own pocket.

So while the LEGAL FEES for either situation would be the same, the
billable
COSTS would not be.


Andrew Laurence             Oakland, California USA
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1994 01:55:30 GMT
From: [e-mail] (jwm)
Subject: Re: Caller-Charging 800 Numbers Should be *Banned*
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst


Our Moderator writes:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Would you also ban 1-800-CALL-ATT? As
> memory serves, you can place long distance calls via that number and
> one of the options is 'press (x) to have this call billed to the
number
> you are calling from ...'

1-800-CALL-ATT offers collect, third-party, person-to-person, calling
card, and Visa/MasterCard billing.  I have used the number for years,
and I have never heard the prompt you describe.  EasyReach 700 offers
the bill-to-calling-number option, though.  Perhaps this is the prompt
you were thinking of.

> Would you ban all the long distance companies
> which use some 800 number as a way to reach their switch when other
> access is unavailable (such as 10xxx being blocked) under the same
> rationale, or is this National Pick On MCI Week?

I wouldn't ban such services, but I would restrict them from billing
calls to the calling number.  I have both 3rd party and collect
screening on my line, yet MCI (whose 1-800-COLLECT properly rejects
calls to my number) accepted a 1-800-CALL-INFO call without requesting
alternative billing arrangements.

> Unfortunatly, the established method of getting directory assistance
> (by dialing areacode-555-1212) is monopolized by AT&T and the telcos
> who properly suck up to them. No matter who you have as your
presubscribed
> long distance carrier, what happens when you dial areacode-555-1212?
> Well, your call goes to AT&T and they charge you 75 cents!  So MCI
is
> charging 75 cents just like AT&T, for two requests just like AT&T,
but
> how are they supposed to get access?

These are the people who helped bring down the mighty Bell System.
Why couldn't they seek an extension of the equal access requirement
for interLATA DA?  It's simple: 1-NPA-555-1212 is routed to the
presubscribed carrier.  That carrier has facilities set up to handle
such calls, and the RBOCs are required to provide each IXC with
database access and operator services under the same agreement these
companies have with AT&T.  This would eliminate the scavenger hunt
methodology MCI seems to be using in number collection, thereby
improving the quality of service.  800 numbers could be maintained as
strictly free of bill-to-calling-number charges, and all carriers
would have the opportunity for an equal slice of the DA market.  (Or
at least a slice proportional to their presubscribed market share.)
I'm surprised that such an arrangement wasn't worked out in the early
80's.

No matter how you slice it, this "free call, charge for info" scheme
smacks of deception.  800-based calling services that accept calling
cards, credit cards, or require 3rd party or collect arrangements, and
800-based mail order lines require the caller to take a proactive step
in order to be billed.  If I give out a calling card number, or give
an operator voice authorization to bill to my line, or charge
merchandise, I *know* that I'm being charged, and there is relatively
little danger of my casually or mistakenly approving charges to my
account. 1-800-CALL-INFO and services of its kind make this kind of
billing very likely, and to some extent rely on public ignorance about
the intricacies of modern telephony.


Jeffrey W. McKeough    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 10 Nov 94 00:20:00 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Eric Paulak)
Subject: Re: 1-800-CALL-INFO


Due to some well thought-out lobbying on the part of both long
distance and local carriers, directory assistance services were given
an exemption to the regulations that govern 800 pay-per-call services.

So, even though 1-800-CALL-INFO is in all sense of the word an 800
pay-per-call service, it does not have to list its rates during the
call, it does not have to print its rates at a certain size in
ralationship to the rest of its ads, it does not require
presubscription
and the person calling does not have to be the person under whose name
the phone is listed.

As a result, even though Nynex, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth and Ameritech
will not currently bill for 800 pay-per-call services, they will pass
the bills through for 1-800-CALL-INFO.

Pat, the attatched article is to be printed as my weekly column in
Network
World magazine on Oct. 24th. Because of copyright, it must have the
Network
World name and date published with it.

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

Rate & Tariff Monitor
1-800-CALL-INFO: Just Another Pay-Per-Call Number

                         by Eric Paulak

     1-800-COLLECT was a marketing coup for MCI. It took an overlooked
service -- collect calling -- that AT&T controlled and turned it on
its head, saving callers money and earning MCI a bundle at the same
time.

     But now the carrier has gone to far.

     In a new attempt to take over an AT&T-controlled fringe market --
long distance directory assistance -- MCI has launched
1-800-CALL-INFO.

     The national directory service does offer some benefits over
standard directory service -- it gives you two numbers for the price
of one -- but there's some question as to how accurate the service is,
plus it could ultimately cost businesses more. In addition, 1-800-CALL-
INFO
gives all the appearances of an 800 pay-per-call number, which has
many users irate.

     The way 1-800-CALL-INFO works is that a caller dials the number
-- 1- 800-225-5463 -- and tells the operator a city and state or
country and the person's name. Callers are allowed to get two numbers
with each call for $.75, compared to $.75/number with standard
directory assistance. That charge is then billed back on your local
bill.

     In addition, after the operator gives you the numbers, you also
get the option of having your call placed over MCI's network and
billed at MCI's Residential Dial 1 rates or international Direct
Distance Dial rates.

     If you're an MCI residential customer, this is actually a good
deal for you. The calls count toward any savings plan you have, and
you get two directory assistance numbers for the price of one.

·

     If you're a business user -- whether with MCI or any other
carrier -- this service is nothing but bad news. You would get hit
with the $.75 charge no matter what DA service someone called. But
with the option to have the call placed at MCI's Residential Dial 1
rates, you'll end up with callers bypassing your cheaper businesses
rates.

     How much could it cost you? MCI's Residential Dial 1 rates are
$.2299 to $.3299/minute, depending on mileage. Whereas, MCI's most
expensive Vnet rates are $.203 to $.262/minute, also depending on
mileage. MCI says they eventually will make 1-800-CALL-INFO part of
its businesses services, but when specifically, they won't say.

     The lower business rates aren't the only thing you lose by
dialing 1- 800-CALL-INFO; you also lose the added volume towards your
volume discounts.  Miss a volume commitment, and you could end up
paying hefty penalties.

     And while you're paying the higher rates, you may not even be
getting the right phone numbers. When checking out the service, I
asked for numbers for two people -- one in Omaha and one in
Shepherdstown, W.V. -- both of whom moved to new locations about six
months ago. MCI's operators gave me their old numbers. Calls to the
NPA-555-1212 operator yielded the correct numbers.

     About a dozen subscribers to an Internet list-serve called the
Telecom Digest had the same problem.

     MCI has its own proprietary database of phone numbers that it
uses and admits that there may be a few errors. But as the service
matures, the number of errors will be reduced. In the meantime, if MCI
does give you a wrong number, you can get the $.75 credited back to
you.

    People shouldn't be surprised that MCI has come out with
1-800-CALL-INFO. After all, MCI does provide service to about
two-thirds of all the dial- a-porn services that are out there,
according to a list of 800 pay-per-call numbers CCMI has compiled.

     The only difference between this service and a sex line is that
as a directory assistance service, 1-800-CALL-INFO is exempt from
having to get prior approval before billing you. MCI also doesn't have
to tell you the cost of the call upfront.

     To avoid getting hit with these charges, you have two options;
you can block [phone] in your PBX; or you can have MCI screen
the call for you.  To have the calls screened, you have to call MCI at
[phone], or fax a list of phone numbers on company letterhead
you want screened to [phone].

     With the screening service, users would still be able to call
from your business, but they would have to bill it to a credit card or
a third party.

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

Date: Tue, 09 Nov 94 20:09:00 PST
From: [e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Re: Caller Charging 800 Numbers Should Be *Banned*


As Pat mentioned in a comment to a previous message, I feel that it is
not appropriate for charges to be applied to the caller's phone bill
(for any reason) as the result of an 800 call.  I don't care if the
callee says they are charging for the information and not the
call -- the bottom line is that you make the call, and an arbitrary
charge shows up on your bill.  You have no warning that it is a
charging call, and you have no reasonable way to block such calls.

Pat's right of course that (area code)+555-1212 was once a free call.
But there's a big difference between changing the status of a single
set of seven digits that (as far as most people are concerned) "lives"
all by itself, versus suddenly facing the prospect that any random 800
number -- an entire area code we've come to expect to be non-charging
to
the caller -- might now (surprise) charge the caller!

I also agree with the suggestion that the most reasonable solution is
to move *all* 800 calls that have the potential of placing a charge on
the caller's phone bill to some other area code.  If a service is
offered via an 800 number, they can make other billing arrangements
with the caller.  But make the phone bill chargers and alternate
carrier access numbers move over to 700, or 500, or some other area
code -- the technology is now in place to allow plenty of new code
assignments, especially with the removal of the second digit 0/1 area
code restrictions.

Pat mentioned that such services could move over to 900, but then
suggested that 900 has a pretty bad reputation these days.  In fact, I
can't see any difference between charging the caller to an 800 number
and charging the caller to a 900 number -- except that in the case of
800 numbers there's no subscriber-based blocking, there are
non-caller-charging calls you still want to reach, there's no warning
of charges, and apparently no established mechanisms to dispute such
charges.  I would submit that if caller-charging 800 numbers continue
to be allowed and expand, and continue to become the obvious
900-blocking workaround that they are, it won't be long at all before
800 numbers cause the same concerns to callers that 900 numbers do
now.  That could be devastating to the conventional users of 800
numbers who just want a mechanism for their customers to use that
doesn't charge the caller.

The whole concept of caller-charging 800 numbers needs to be
reconsidered -- and the faster the better.


 --Lauren--


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My thanks to several other writers who
commented on this topic but have not been included here. And to the
several of you (also not included here) who mentioned that you
subscribe
to carrier 'X' and get your DA calls billed by carrier 'X', all I can
say is ask your carrier who *they* purchase the information from which
they immediatly and transparently resell to you.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Matthew P. Downs)
Subject: Re: T-1 is Much Better Than Frame Relay
Date: 10 Nov 1994 00:31:29 GMT
Organization: ADC Telecommunications


[e-mail] (Jeff Buckingham) writes:

> We had an interesting experience at Call America triing to buy Frame
> Relay.  We needed to connect offices in Salinas, Fresno,
Bakersfield,
> and Santa Barbara with our Main office in San Luis Obispo. We had
> planned to connect to frame relay at the T-1 level from San Luis
> Obispo. The other offices were going to be connected at the 56k
level.
> The bids we got from AT&T, MCI, and Sprint were about $6700.00 per
> month.

> We then discovered that we can purchase T-1's to each office for
about
> $2000.00 per month. This was very interesting because we were able
to
> buy 24 times the bandwidth for 1/3 of the price.

> We are a long distance carrier and we do purchase T-1's for about 7-
15
> cents per circuit mile (each T-1 has 24 circuit miles per mile of
> distance) so our situation may be different from some end users but
I
> really think that the whole frame relay thing is vastly over hyped
and
> many companies are being sold frame relay who do not really need it.

I was always under the impression that the advantages for Frame Relay
was realized when full T1 utilization was not needed.  Therefore, it
makes sense to me that it would cost more for what you described.  Or
alternatively, it was tarrifed that way in order to catch people that
don't understand and get full T1 frame relay set-up.  Of course,
justifying it to the PUC by saying we have to recover the cost of the
equipment.  8^) ...


Matt

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

From: [e-mail] (Matthew P. Downs)
Subject: Re: What Does *67 do?
Date: 09 Nov 1994 22:33:10 GMT
Organization: ADC Telecommunications


[e-mail] (Robert Patterson) writes:

> I live in the San Francisco Bay Area under the auspices of PacBell.
> They do not offer CallerID.  When I dial *67 (apparently the
CallerID
> on/off signal) I get a couple of clicks and a dial tone.  The
> switching department at PacBell vehemently claims that nothing is
> happening.  Anyone with an idea?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What's happening is that the local
> switch is accepting your command to 'do not pass calling number ID
> to call recipient' just as it is supposed to do. And then, it
proceeds
> not to give out that information ... which it wouldn't do anyway
> under the present circumstances there, but that is beside the point.
> They are using a version of software which allows for *67 and it
> is probably easier for them to leave it as is rather than disable
> the use of that command (which does nothing anyway). For instance,
> in some exchanges in Chicago which were not Caller-ID equipped,
meaning
> calls from phones in that area showed up as 'out of area' on caller
> identification boxes elsewhere, *67 still worked as you describe. I
> guess they figured soon enough it would have a purpose, so they just
> left it alone. I imagine PacBell feels the same way. Why bother to
> change/eliminate it everywhere then possibly have to go and put it
> back in at a future time.    PAT]

I have had different meanings for *67, like auto redial last person
who called me, etc.  The numbers depend upon which local carrier you
have ...


Matt


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Umm ... I think *60 and *65 have some
meaning here for 'last number redial' and things like that. I no
longer
subscribe to any of those things. Does anyone have a complete list of
the 'star codes' as they relate to all the new features?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Mah)
Subject: Re: T1 -> 24 x v.32 -> RS232
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1994 10:52:07 -0500
Organization: One Step Beyond


Lance Ellinghaus <[e-mail]> wrote:

> A company called Primary Access has a product that will take a T1
(24
> VOICE channels) and interpret the DS0 channels as modem connections
> (v.32, v.42bis, etc..) and output standard RS232 to hook to a
system.

> What other companies have something like this?  Comments on their
> products?  Contacts to get more information?

Well, their domain name is PRIACC.COM, but they only seem to have
e-mail connectivity at the moment (no WWW, FTP, etc.).

If you get any pricing info on this product/service, I would be
interested as a normal channel bank costs mucho money.


Cheers,

Robert S. Mah           Software Development          +1.212.947.6507
One Step Beyond        and Network Consulting          [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Need Amp to Boost DTMF Strength
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1994 17:14:15 GMT


Les Reeves ([e-mail]) wrote:

> WATS resellers used the R-TEC (Reliance Comm/Tec) VFR5050 2-Wire to
> 2-Wire repeater for boosting signals.  The repeater is easy to set
up,
> and unconditionally stable.  It automatically disables itself when
> data carriers of any sort are detected.

I use one of these on an OPX line between a Panasonic PBX and an
off-premises station.  I don't particularly like it, however.  It is
half-duplex, like a speakerphone.  You can't interrupt a long-talking
far-end speaker, and you can't hear the far end at all if there is a
significant background noise level at the near end.

But, can anybody suggest a better solution?


Dave Levenson  Internet: [e-mail]
Westmark, Inc.  UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave
Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Lundgren)
Subject: Re: Help With Ring Detector Circuit
Date: 09 Nov 1994 21:22:58 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Knowledge Network


Tyson Norris ([e-mail]) wrote:

> I am trying to build some sort of ring dectection circuit for
> an answering machine. Basically I just need the lines to be
connected to
> the machine when the voltage goes above 90 (ring) and disconnected
when
> the voltage drops to 8 (calling party hangs up). I know I'm going to
have
> to use some sort of relays etc. but have little experience and would
> appreciate any pointers anyone would offer.

I've used NE-2H neon bulbs for a ring detector.  They're available at
Radio Snack.  I put one in series with a 22K resistor across the
incoming line.  Polarity isn't important.  The bulb is put next to a
photocell inside a small bottle cap or other dark opaque container,
and some black silicone seal to hold it in place and keep out the
light.  The leads of the photocell are run to the plus voltage and the
base of a transistor, with enough current capacity to drive a relay.
Put a .1 uF capacitor across the photocell to keei transients from
activating the relay.  Depending on the current, you might need two
transistors connected in Darlington fashion.  Again, the polarity of
the photocell isn't important.


    John Lundgren - Elec Tech - Info Tech Svcs
    Rancho Santiago Community College District
    17th St. at Bristol \ Santa Ana, CA 92706
[e-mail]\[e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: NANP Nightmare
From: [e-mail] (Bob Schwartz)
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 94 16:02:33 PDT
Organization: Bill Correctors, Inc., Marin County, California


[e-mail] (Daniel E. Ganek) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
> com (Van Hefner) writes:

>> Boston Business Misses Phone Calls Due to Bungled Exchange
>> Oct. 8 -- Lori Moretti lives to hear the phone ring. But since she
>> recently moved her public relations firm to its new Boston locale
near
>> Fort Point Channel, the lines have been unusually quiet.

> [ Story about a company losing business because of a new phobe
exchange]

>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: NYNEX cannot really be blamed
because
>> the proprietors of some private phone systems at large companies,
>> universities, etc are klutzes. People wanted a telephone network
where
>> everyone did thier own thing, so that's what they got now over ten
>> years ago. I used to work for a large department store downtown on
a
>> part time basis trying to straighten out the mess that predecessors
>> had made of the Rolm PBX there. It was a mess!  There were lots of

> Question: Why do private systems require such programming at all?
> If I dial an unused exchange NYNEX tells me. Why don't private
systems
> just put the call thru and let the CO handle it??

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They rarely 'require' such
programming and
> can in fact be configured to just let everything past unchecked. The
reason
> this is not often done is because the owner of the private system
has no
> convenient method of collecting the charges from his users, so
rather than
> lose large amounts of money from users who would otherwise get a
free ride
> on his phone system, all sorts of obstacles are programmed into the
switch
> to make 'unauthorized' calls difficult or impossible to complete.
Where
> the problem comes in is that telco can't (usually) be counted on to
refuse
> to complete calls with toll charges attached. Usually whatever
protection
> the PBX has against fraud and misuse has to come as a result of the
owner
> installing it. Deciding which outgoing calls are going to result in
> simply reaching a telco intercept and which are going to result in
big $$
> billed to the owner is difficult; thus the owner has to take on the
> burden of sorting it all out.   PAT]

Pat,

If I am a LARGE user, the type that tends to have a PBX in the first
place, then I need this information on new prefixes and area codes for
my ARS (Automatic Route Selection) or FRS (foreign route selection, or
LCR (least cost routing) tables in order to take advantage of FEX
circuits, tie lines, feature group connections, intra company off
premises routing via centrex lines or a myriad of other factors that
have little or nothing to do with fraud or collecting from users. It
has everything to do with keeping costs down. Financial
Telecommunications
Management, our specialty.


Regards,

Bob Schwartz                                       [e-mail]
Bill Correctors, Inc.   [phone]   Marin County, California

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #408
******************************