Software Vault: The Diamond Collection/The Diamond Collection (Software Vault)(Digital Impact).ISO/cdr16/tc15_081.zip/TC15-081.TXT

Text File | 1995-03-12 | 36KB | 899 lines

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 7 Feb 95 00:53:00 CST    Volume 15 : Issue 81

Inside This Issue:                         Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Book Review: "Straight Talk About the Information Superhighway"
(Rob
Slade)
    GTE PCS/Global Roam (Bernard Cerier)
    Caller ID and Call Waiting (Evan Champion)
    Re: Old Phone Number Format Question (Charles Shukis)
    Re: Old Phone Number Format Question (Al Varney)
    Re: MCI Strikes Again (Christopher Harwood Snider)
    Re: How I Fooled Caller ID (Shawn Gordhamer)
    Re: How I Fooled Caller ID (John Lundgren)
    Basic LAN/WAN Internetworking Cliff Notes Needed (guest machine)
    Professional Voice Prompts For IVR etc. (Evan Berle)
    Another A&T 500 Service Mixup (Matthew Spaethe)
    Re: MCI Gave me a Deal (Michael P. Deignan)
    Re: MCI Gave me a Deal (Christopher Harwood Snider)
    Re: MCI Bureaucratic Blunder (Richard Masoner)
    Re: Fraudulent Call Forwarding (Robert S. Helfman)

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 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. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

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: Mon, 06 Feb 1995 14:25:05 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Straight Talk About the Information Superhighway"


BKSTINSH.RVW   941226

"Straight Talk About the Information Superhighway", Goldsborough,
1994, 1-
56761-513-9, U$19.99/C$26.99
%A   Reid Goldborough
%C   8219 Northwest Blvd., Indianapolis, IN  46278
%D   1994
%G   1-56761-513-9
%I   Alpha Books/MacMillan Publishing, USA
%O   U$19.99/C$26.99 800-858-7674
%P   340
%T   "Straight Talk About the Information Superhighway"

Yes, by all means, let us have some straight talk about the
information superhighway.  The author waffles around with terms like
"vehicle for the delivery ... of ... multimedia," but the reality is
that the phrase was and is a speech-writer's icon.  The slogan is very
environmentally friendly: it has been reused in ever-broader
situations,
recycled in more promotions and speeches, and, in the process, reduced
almost to meaninglessness.  Goldsborough, in common with many who have
only a tenuous grasp on the concepts, attempts to marry the
widespread,
anarchic, and still experimental Internet with the tightly-controlled
"providers" of electronic media.  (He also attempts to expand the
collection of information supercliches with "infopike".  Since he uses
this to draw an analogy to the toll-road turnpikes of the northeastern
United States, it is easy to see where his sympathies lie.)

The book is a collection of enthusiastic essays about life in the
telecom-
rich future, with a piece concluding each chapter by some politician,
"industry leader", Famous Person, or other "expert".  Sometimes, it's
hard to determine whether the "viewpoint" is an addendum to the
chapter,
the chapter is an introduction to the viewpoint, or whether both are
related
solely by proximity.

The author must be sensitive, in advance, to possible charges that
this material is all very "blue sky".  After the opening story, he
argues that this is not a fantasy, but that future technology will be
very much like it.  Of course, the technologies presented -- email,
multimedia extensions, teleconferencing, voice recognition and
macros -- are all available *now*, but it is obvious that Goldsborough
is not really experienced in the most effective ways to use them.

This is an extended series of the usual mass-media magazine articles,
high on "gee whiz!" and low on content.

copyright Robert M. Slade, 1994   BKSTINSH.RVW   941226.  Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications.


Vancouver      [e-mail]
Institute for  [e-mail]
Research into  [e-mail]
User           [e-mail]
Security       Canada V7K 2G6

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

Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 15:26:29 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: GTE PCS/Global Roam


Pat,

Information you may find of interest.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Forwarded By Mac SprintMail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

February 2, 1995

GTE PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES AND DEUTSCHE TELEKOM MOBILFUNK
GMBH
(DETEMOBIL) ANNOUNCE GLOBALROAM(SM), AN INTERNATIONAL CELLULAR ROAMING
SERVICE; GTE OFFERS FLAT RATE AIRTIME CHARGE IN EUROPE AND OTHER
CONTINENTS

GTE Personal Communications Services and DeTeMobil today announced an
agreement to offer international cellular roaming service.  With the
service, called GlobalRoam(SM), a traveler's cellular roaming
capability
will ultimately be expanded to most countries in the world.

"American business travelers will have the same communications
mobility from
country to country as they already have domestically from city to
city," said
Jerry Waylan, executive vice president-product management and business
development, GTE PCS.  "Our research clearly indicates a need and
desire for
this service."

In 1993, 3.7 million business people traveled between the U.S. and
Europe," said Roland Mahler, executive director of product management
mobile telephony services, DeTeMobil.  "As the marketplace becomes
increasingly global, we are making sure that business communications
are keeping pace."

Through this agreement, each company will have its own gateway to
provide interoperability between their two different cellular
transmission standards.  GTE, along with all other carriers in North
and South America, uses analog cellular radio technology known as the
AMPS standard, which stands for Advanced Mobile Phone Service.  Most
other countries in the world have adopted a digital cellular system
known as the GSM standard, which stands for Global System for Mobile
communications.  Deutsche Telekom, the parent company of DeTeMobil,
played a leading role in the development of GSM.

Initially, DeTeMobil subscribers will have access to North American
cellular services.  Through international roaming agreements between
DeTeMobil and other GSM network operators, North American subscribers,
through their local carriers, will be able to use worldwide GSM
networks.  In the summer of 1995, GlobalRoam will be available in more
than 30 countries, and will eventually be expanded to include
countries with other cellular standards.

GTE PCS will market the service initially to large U.S. corporate
customers and then to North American cellular carriers including GTE
Mobilnet and Contel Cellular, who will offer the service to their
customers under the GlobalRoam service name.  DeTeMobil will offer
GlobalRoam to GSM cellular carriers.

Subscribers to the GlobalRoam service will receive a "smart card,"
programmed with an identification number and other customer
information.
For travel outside the U.S. and Canada, they will purchase or rent a
GSM mobile phone that accepts the card.  The phones will be available
for overnight shipment.  When subscribers use the phone in a foreign
network, calls to their home cellular phone number will automatically
be directed to their GSM phone, which will operate in any country
where DeTeMobil has a roaming agreement with the respective network
operator.  "Ultimately, we expect manufacturers to develop dual mode,
AMPS/GSM cellular phones, which can be used at home as well as in
other countries," Waylan said.

All charges will appear on the customers "home" cellular phone bill as
international roaming charges.  The GlobalRoam service will be made
available to cellular carriers at a flat wholesale rate, per-minute
airtime charge, plus toll, and a one-time activation fee with
recurring
monthly charges per subscriber.  Cellular carriers can then retail
this service to their subscribers.  Additionally, as an option, the
carrier can provide to North American travelers a debit "smart card."
A $100 debit card, for example, would cover the cost of $100 in
airtime and toll charges.  The debit card will initially be available
for use in Germany.

GTE Telecommunication Services Inc. (GTE TSI) will facilitate this
service by providing the AMPS/GSM gateway in North America.  In
addition, GTE TSI -- which provides advanced software services to the
wireless industry -- will provide billing record translation and
clearing services so that charges for the international roaming
service will be included on customers standard cellular telephone
bills.  For additional information on this service, call 1-800-798-
ROAM.

Deutsche Telekom Mobilfunk GmbH (DeTeMobil), headquartered in Bonn, is
a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Deutsche Telekom AG, dealing with
mobile communication services.  The company is Germanys largest
provider of these services and one of the largest in Europe with more
than 2.2 million customers at the end of 1994.  DeTeMobil is the
operator of the digital network D1 and played a leading role in the
development of the successful international GSM standard Global System
for Mobile Communications.

       GlobalRoam to be available in summer 1995 in these countries:

                        Australia       Latvia
                        Austria         Luxembourg
                        Belgium         Netherlands
                        Canada          Norway
                        Denmark         Philippines
                        Estonia         Portugal
                        Finland         Singapore
                        France          South Africa
                        Germany         Spain
                        Greece          Sweden
                        Hong Kong       Switzerland
                        Hungary         Turkey
                        Iceland         United Arab Emirates
                        Indonesia       United Kingdom
                        Ireland         United States
                        Italy

                                   # # #

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

Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 20:10:40 +0000
From: evan champion <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID and Call Waiting
Organization: Bell Northern Research


This is a problem that I'm sure is shared by many people who have
caller ID and call waiting.

If you have caller ID, you have probably grown very attached to that
"reassuring" feeling of knowing that the person at the other end is
not a telemarketer, or similarly disfunctional individual, but rather
you best friend Bob.

Now, the problem is that if you are on the phone and someone calls in,
you get the call waiting beep but no indication of who the second
caller is.  Caller ID is not applied to the call waiting service.

Is there a reason why caller ID cannot be used with call waiting?  I
would pay dearly to be able to get call display and name display
working with call waiting.

(I am a Bell Canada subscriber, but I suspect this problem affects
more
than just us Canucks).


Evan


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is a two-part answer here. The
first part is why it cannot work, and the scond part is about how it
will soon be changed so it does work.  The present arrangement is
that the data has to be sent when the phone is on hook. If you are
willing to disconnect your call in progress and hang up completely
(rather than just flashing the hook and putting the first party on
hold) then you *will* get the CID for the new call. The data gets
sent to your box between the first and second *actual ring at your
end*. This means it could 'ring' five times in the caller's ear and
you would get a couple of call waiting tones. You finally tell your
caller you want to see about the other call and will call him back
later. You disconnect and the call waiting starts ringing at your
end. Watch your ID box; the calling number will show up there immed-
iatly. The ID comes between the first and second ring *you hear* from
the actual bell on your phone. Now if it is someone you do not want
to talk to, well, you are sort of stuck at that point. I guess you
let it ring through to your answering machine or voicemail. That is
another curious point: Even though you have voicemail you might have
noticed that the call waiting won't transfer there after three/four
rings like other calls. Well, it will, but again, its after three/four
rings *that you hear* -- not the artificial 'rings' the caller gets
in his ear. A sophisticated caller who knows that he always gets your
voicemail after three/four rings calls and it rings ten times in his
ear *then* he gets your voicemail realizes you were there, and on a
call, and chose not to take his call once you saw who was on the ID
box.

That is going to change however. We had a report here not long ago
about
'Caller-ID on Call Waiting' (I believe that is what it is called) and
how
it will be implemented later this year in many places.  My
understanding is
you'll need to have a special kind of phone to make it work. It will
work
sort of like call waiting does now, where the central office gets on
your
pair, and for a split second breaks the path to the person you are
talking
to in order to send the spurts of tone. Its going to do that same kind
of
thing with Caller ID on Call Waiting in the future. Existing display
boxes
and phones will not be compatible however. Would whoever sent in that
report send it again as there have been others asking.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Shukis)
Subject: Re: Old Phone Number Format Question
Date: 6 Feb 1995 00:22:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom


>>> The following question appeared recently in the Old Time Radio
>>> Digest mailing list, and seems tailor-made for an answer from this
>>> forum.

>>> From: "Richard M. Weil" <[e-mail]>

>>> The number for the store in Rockford was curiously 8-22-47.  I'm
>>> too young to know anything about 5 digit phone numbers.  Is that
>>> how it was back then in small cities?

Gee, all this talk of 5-digit numbers makes me feel old!  I grew up in
a
small town in western Pennsylvania, and in the late 1940's, our phone
number was 849M.  No idea why the "M" instead of a fourth number, but
the line was a four-party line (private lines were extremely rare --
most
everybody I knew had a party line).  The phone would ring when any one
of the party-line subscribers were called ... each had his own
distinctive
ringing pattern.  Ours was two longs and two shorts, or some such
thing.

The only way to tell if the line was in use was to pick up the
receiver
and listen.  One of the other subscribers on our line had a daughter
quite a few years older than I, and I must admit that I didn't always
hang up when I heard her on the phone. Never listened long, though,
because I found "girl talk" boring ... "mushy" was the word used in
those
days, I believe.  "Crossed connections" were not uncommon in the days
of
mechanical CO's (anybody remember the cats' eyes?), either, so we
frequently got to listen to conversations between other subscribers,
as
well.  No taps, no bugs, no scanners: the telephone was a source of
entertainment as well as a means of communications.

I don't know what the laws were then, but I probably committed my
first felony, or at least misdemeanor, before I was five years old!
As we got older, we found another way to use the phone for
entertainment:
"prank" calls.  Call the local drugstore ... "Do you have Prince
Albert
in a can?" ... 'Yes, we do.' ... "Well, you'd better let him out
before
he suffocates!"  Such shenanigans are a thing of the past, killed by
ANI, CID, auto call-back, auto call-trace, and the like ... perhaps
it's
just as well.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For those unaware, 'Prince Albert' was
a
type of smoking tobacco used in a pipe. I guess they still make it.
The
other variation on this was to call someone late at night and claim to
be the Electric Company, asking 'is your refrigerator running?' Some
fools
would actually put the phone down and go into the kitchen to see, then
come back and say it was. "Then you better stop it before it runs away
and you never see it again ...".  To five and six year old children,
those jokes are very funny, especially when played on an 'old person'
late at night, after the 'old person' was already in bed asleep and
the
child should have been but wasn't.  The 'M' (like J, W, and R) were
just
keys to tell the operator which party on the line was to be rung. The
switchboards had four buttons marked M,J,W,R and the operator would
press
down on one of these buttons while pulling the ringing key. Whichever
one she pressed sent the current one way or another down the party
line
to ring the one bell, and only the one bell similarly wired. Other
places
had the 'short/long' ringing system as you mentioned, where all bells
were
wired in common, and the subscriber was relied upon to know which to
answer and which to ignore.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Al Varney)
Subject: Re: Old Phone Number Format Question

·
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 07:40:29 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Michael Dillon
<michael@junction.
net> wrote:

> In article <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail].
> uoknor.edu> wrote:

>>> From: "Richard M. Weil" <[e-mail]>

>>> The number for the store in Rockford was curiously 8-22-47.  I'm
>>> too young to know anything about 5 digit phone numbers.  Is that
>>> how it was back then in small cities?

> Too young, eh?

> In the early 1970's I lived near Moonstone, Ontario in Canada. At
the
> time we got phone service from the Moonstone Telephone Company which
> was bought by Bell in 1972 I believe. Before Bell came in, our
number
> was 33-W-21. The way it was explained to me was that 33 was our line

   I grew up on a farm outside a small Kansas town, with manual phone
lines run by Southwestern Bell.  I still have a yardstick from the
local lumber yard with "Phone 37" on it.  Around 1959 they put in a
small SXS CDO and dial phones.  And everybody got a four-digit phone
number in the block of 32xx to 35xx.

   Since business (and businessmen's homes) had all the two-digit
numbers, they were converted to the 32xx block by prefixing "32".  So
the lumber yard got 3237 and his house got 3236.  His widow still has
that number.  Southwestern Bell replaced the SXS in 1993 with a
digital switch, and forced everyone to seven-digit local dialing.
Virtually every business still has a NXX-32xx number.  (The fire
department has 3210.)

   For my home town, the current phone book (6" by 9" format) has just
over three pages.  My dad has the distinction (since his mother died
in
1980) of being the only "V" entry.


Al Varney

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

From: Christopher Harwood Snider <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Strikes Again
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 15:43:32 GMT


[e-mail]  writes:

> 3) MCI missed the boat.  When I called, they seemed to think nothing
>    of the fact that the long-distance service was not in my name.

> 4) Telecom*USA, when informed of the whole proceedings, declared
that I
>    had a "$5 minimum usage" charge on my acount.  When in reality, I
didn't.

> 5) Southwestern Bell AND MCI don't compare notes when user's start
>    complaining about mis-billing.  Only when state agencies get in
the
>    act, do they begin to resolve the problem.

> Is it over?  I don't believe it will end until the PSC gets involved
again.

> This is a time that makes me wish there were two local companies.
That way
> the competition would force them to be as caring of their users as
they are
> about their money.

> On the other hand, I believe that Murphy was an optimist.

Michael,

     If I'm not mistaken, Telecom*USA is a subsidiary of MCI.  I've
looked at their rates, and they are not pretty. The MCI F&F program
beats them and there are even better rates out there.  It really is
worth it to look around.


Regards,

Christopher H. Snider   Telecommunications Consulting
American Access         [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Shawn Gordhamer)
Subject: Re: How I Fooled Caller ID
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700
guest)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 18:58:14 GMT


Could you send the data while your phone is ringing?  I've heard that
you can put resistors across your line and talk to someone while your
phone is ringing, and the phone company doesn't know it's picked up.
This implies that you can send data yourself between rings.  Is this
true?


Shawn Gordhamer   [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, you can put a resistor across the
line then attach a listening device behind that and listen all you
want
without being detected. That's how phones are tapped. And, I suppose
you could send data, since as far as everyone else is concerned, your
phone is still on hook.  But how would the person who is attempting to
spoof *your* display box know that you had such resistance on your
line
unless he came to your house and put it there himself?  Seems like a
lot
of trouble to me.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Lundgren)
Subject: Re: How I Fooled Caller ID
Date: 6 Feb 1995 19:48:29 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Knowledge Network


Clifton T. Sharp ([e-mail]) wrote:

>> Standalone Caller ID boxes that display calling number, or calling
>> number and name, "listen" all the time, and any time a valid
incoming
>> Caller ID comes in, they display it!  I checked several brands, and
>> they all behaved this way.  Someone should alert the telcos and

> Not the Radio Shack 43-951 (sold some years ago); it only supplies
+5V
> to its XR2206 chip between the first and second rings.  I don't
believe
> my AT&T model 85 will, either, but haven't been inside it.

The XR2206 chip requires a _minimum_ of 10 volts to operate.  The
above statement sounds bogus to me.


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

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

From: guest machine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Basic LAN/WAN Internetworking Cliff Notes Needed
Date: 7 Feb 1995 00:59:00 GMT
Organization: Loyola University of Chicago


Can you assist with a brief discussion on the basics behind LAN/WAN
technology and internetworking?

I'm interviewing for a job and am not all that familiar with this
area.  I don't need the techy version, but just need to be able to
talk intelligently about LANS/WANS, hubs and routers. I would like
information on the major players in these areas. i.e cisco Systems,
Synoptics, etc.

Thanks; I really appreciate any assistance here.

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

From: [e-mail] (Evan Berle)
Subject: Professional Voice Prompts for IVR etc.
Date: 7 Feb 1995 02:52:09 GMT
Organization: Vox Box


Are you involved in setting up:

Automated Attendants
Voice Mail
Interactive Voice Response Systems
Fax-Back Systems
Automated Call Directors
 ... or any other system that prompts the user with voice?

Are you looking for professional voice prompts? Check out the VOX BOX
home page at HTTP://www.pubnix.net/~evan using Netscape or any other
graphical browser.  VOX BOX provides voice prompts and on-hold
advertising to telephone companies and end-users.


Evan Berle   Montreal, CANADA.
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Matthew Spaethe)
Subject: AT&T 500 Service
Date: 6 Feb 1995 19:30:37 GMT
Organization: UMR Missouri's Technological University


On September 4, 1994, I reserved 1-500-FOR-MATT (which is a
non-guaranteed reservation).  I was told that that number was not
being used, and they would do whatever would be possible to get me
that number.  For the next months, I called and called to check up on
the status of the 500 assignments.  Well, on Jan 3,1995, I ordered my
500 number which was scheduled to go into service on Feb 3,1995.  Then
my 700 number was supposed to be cancelled at the same time.  Well in
late January, my number was working, but someone else was answering
the call.  I called AT&T, and they told me to just wait until Feb 3,
and it should work then.

Yesterday was Feb 3, and I called them.  They were going to assign my
700 master pin to my 500 number that evening.  I called back later to
ask a question, and now they had NO RECORD EVER of me ever wanting a
500 number.  I was informed that the 500 number belonged to someone
else!  NO RECORD OF ANY CONVERSATION! NONE!! NADA!!!  They told me
they were sorry, but there was nothing they could do.  Believe me, I
was very upset.  Not just losing my number, but not having any record
of talking to them.  I kept asking them about all the literature I
have that I requested!  It's got my name, my address, etc.

They set me up a new 500 number in 55 minutes.  It went from a month
to 55 minutes!  My voice mail still doesn't let me in, and they keep
trying to fix it.  United Telephone doesn't know how to bill the 500
call, so I must use a calling card.  MANY MANY little things ...  I
know that "my" 500 number terminates in NY, and that I believe that
person also had 0-700-MATTHEW.  It wouldn't suprise me if he worked
for AT&T (since their headquarters is located at 195 Broadway).  It's
just very very very weird for all information about my 500 number to
be GONE! VANISHED!.

Four of my five lines are now on MCI, enjoying my 0.06/min night rate
...


Matt :(

* Internet: [e-mail]
* PGP Public Key: finger [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, you might check again. Very
possibly
the computer was 'down' when you called and they could not 'find a
record'
of any previous calls. Sometimes when they are without computer they
try
to bluff as they go along ("I don't have all of your records available
to
me right now ..."). What you are saying could be true, but I have
never
seen them quite that bad, that they lost everything.

In other news, *my* 500 number started working perfectly today. About
3 PM
Monday I tried dialing 0-500 and 1-500 and as before, got nowhere. But
I
had already found out both versions work fine from Chicago. I called
repair service on a lark and ask them 'when is 500 going to be
unblocked?'
I got a call back within ten minutes from a woman very eager to hear
all
about it. She insisted all was working fine. "Not in the Skokie CO," I
told her. She seemed astounded to hear that but said she would look
into
it right away.  Another five or ten minutes goes past and she calls me
again to advise "I fixed it. The translations were not loaded is all
...
you can use it now."

Of course I tried it immediatly after disconnecting with her, and sure
enough, it worked fine, twenty minutes or less after calling repair
service.
Amazing ... absolutely amazing. An interesting side to this is when I
use
my own phone to dial 1-500-677-1616 (my number) it rings once and I am
told it will try my alternate numbers (because it found my home number
to
be busy).  When I do 0-500-677-1616 and tell it to bill the call to
the
phone I am using, it vanishes for a couple seconds and I get call-
waiting,
then after four rings (call waiting or not) it interupts and a voice
message says it will try my alternate numbers. I did not bother with
AT&T
voicemail; I have voicemail up the kazooey from a few other places I
rarely
use. Anyway, feel free to call me at any reasonable hour: 500-677-
1616.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: MCI Gave me a Deal
Date: 6 Feb 1995 11:56:58 GMT
Organization: Population Studies & Training Center


> MCI called yesterday, and made me an offer I didn't want to refuse.
> 50% off on all calls for six months.  After that, 50% off on calls
to
> MCI customers (no list required) and 25% off (if I recall correctly)
> to everyone else.

I saw a commercial for this last night. I thought it stooped to a new
sleazy low in marketing. At the very end, MCI claims you "always save
over AT&T True USA" and then in little letters that I needed to squint
to see, next to "True USA" were the words "ex promo".

Wow, what a deal. What next? "Save 99% on all calls" and then in a
four
point font "compared to AT&T's rates 30 years ago!"

I think the public is rapidly becoming burnt out on these percentage
"savings" compared to some obscure number nobody ever mentions. I
don't
know a single person who doesn't flip the station when a long distance
advertisement comes on.

In my opinion, Sprint is the real winner now, with their penny-per-
minute
promo. At least you know what you're paying and when the rate is
applicable.
With the other two, its a percentage crap-shoot over some elusive
"basic"
rate.


MD

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

From: Christopher Harwood Snider <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Gave me a Deal
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 15:39:18 GMT


[e-mail]  writes:

> MCI called yesterday, and made me an offer I didn't want to refuse.
> 50% off on all calls for six months.  After that, 50% off on calls
to
> MCI customers (no list required) and 25% off (if I recall correctly)
> to everyone else.

50% off is all well and good, but what is it off of? If that is their
savings on $1/minute rates then you are getting taken to the cleaners.
Percentages do not matter as much as the bottom line which is the
rate you are paying. Find out what those are and then you can make a
viable comparison. I have flat rates around 14 cents/minute on my home
line with a carrier. I have seen better rates from resellers, but I
just
can not trust them with my phone service. Anyone in the US can get
these
rates and businesses will often times get better, if not much better,
rates. Also, do not get a calling card if it has a surcharge or any
hidden fees such as higher first minute billing. Ask for nothing less
than straight six second billing. You should only be paying for what
you
use, right? I hope this helps. :-)


Regards,

Christopher H. Snider   Telecommunications Consulting
American Access         [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 6 Feb 95 11:24:25 CST
From: [e-mail] (Richard Masoner)
Subject: Re: MCI Bureaucratic Blunder
Organization: Central Data Corp., Champaign, IL


> was made!  October was the last month we received a billing from MCI
> on the U.S. West bill, and it was only for part of the month.  So,
> suspicions are that an error made by U.S. West in finally correcting
> their bill to us created the problem with MCI, and started the

This is interesting.  I too am an MCI subscriber, and last October the
MCI portion of my bill no longer appeared on my GTE-North phone bill.
I did get the MCI bill separately, directly from MCI.  A phone call
inquiring about why this was quickly rectified the situation.


Richard


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Rectify it for us please. Why are they
now billing you separately.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert S. Helfman)
Subject: Re: Fraudulent Call Forwarding
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 08:17:08 -0800
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation


In article <[e-mail]> Patrick Townsend wrote:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This same report appeared in
alt.dcom.telecom
> today submitted to that newsgroup by Jack Decker who concluded by
saying
  ........deleted...........

> What goes around comes around:  Does anyone remember the old
anecdote about
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^....Hah!
> the original development of automatic switching involving Alvin
Stroger?
> Mr. Stroger was an undertaker a hundred years ago; he believed that
the
> operators on the manual exchange serving his community had been
bribed to
> divert calls from the public seeking funeral/burial services to his
compe-
> tition. So the story goes, he developed the switch which came to
bear his
> name as a way to be certain that manual operators at telephone
exchanges
> could not wilfully give away his business to his competitors.   PAT]

PAT, tell us that you actually intended that hysterical pun! (Then
again, many readers are too young to get it ...)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yeah, I had the same thing in mind. I
do
stand corrected though on the inventor's name: It is spelled
'Strowger'
with a /w/ in the middle.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #81
*****************************