Night Owl 9/Night Owl CD-ROM (NOPV9) (Night Owl Publisher) (1993).ISO/034a/tc13_179.zip/TC13-179.TXT

Text File | 1993-03-15 | 20KB | 439 lines

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 15 Mar 93 03:04:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 179

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    The Digest and Commercial Messages (TELECOM Moderator)
    "Stand Back, Buenos Aires..." (Paul Robinson)
    How Do I Get Rid of Line Noise? (Richard Sherman)
    Cellular Phone Price List (3/12) (Paul Robinson)
    Public Phone 2000 (Doug Krause)
    CFB & DID/OPX to Answering Service? (Jeff Wasilko)
    Re: Ohio Bell Making Your Life Easier (Henry Mensch)
    Re: Tell Me About Your Pager (David Lemson)
    Re: Cellular System A and B Info Wanted (David Lemson)
    Re: Disabling *70 (Tad Cook)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 02:27:02 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Digest and Commercial Messages


There have been some sincere questions raised by several people in the
past couple of weeks since I announced my new venture here, selling
telecom services of various kinds. The questions generally dealt with
the ethics involved in trying to maintain an impartial stance as a
Moderator while selling telecom-related products and services. The
people who asked these things did so in good faith, and the same kind
of response is warranted.

When I assumed responsibility for TELECOM Digest in 1988 (yes, it will
soon be five years of me here), the volume of messages and range of
topics was much smaller than it is now. The mailing list was about
one-tenth the number of names it is now. In addition, there had been a
hiatus where the Digest was not being distributed to Usenet. When I
took the reigns, the 'Usenet connection' via comp.dcom.telecom was
reinstated, and over the past four years numerous other networks have
begun accepting the telecom feed for their email subscribers, sometimes
by having them on the mailing matrix here, other times through what we
term an 'exploder address'; that is, a single copy of the Digest goes
out from here to a network address where it is then redistributed. In
total, there are approximatly 50,000 people who see the Digest each
day and read some or all of it. These additional readers have caused a
major increase in the number of submissions received each day. In 1988
enough material was received to issue a Digest every two days or so.
(Do any of the oldtime readers remember the first time I put out a
second issue in one day due to the amount of mail recieved? I do ...)

Well, I guess I am a victim of my own success; now there are always in
excess of a hundred messages arriving daily to be reviewed, and not
often, but sometimes there are closer to two hundred articles. If
there is a major news story in the papers, I'll usually get five or
more copies of it from readers; I select one or two for publication.
My point is, where five years ago the Digest took perhaps an hour of
time every day or so to publish, now, even with greatly expanded
automation, autoreplies and numerous filtering programs run against
the incoming mail, the Digest needs a minimum of three or four hours
daily, and even then you see perhaps a third to half of what comes in.

I had to reach a decision what to do, and my decision back in late
January was to leave my fulltime employment of some years with the
attornies and concentrate as much as possible on making the changes
needed to bring the Digest up to its full potential: to install new
software, to give the archives the time needed to organize the files
and remove outdated stuff, etc.

Of course, I still have to eat, pay rent, feed the cats, make my car
payment each month and whatnot ... and therein lies the rub ... what I
make from the Digest plus a couple dollars would get me a snack at the
7/11 on the corner. I thought a painless way for readers to help with
the task of keeping the Digest up and running as a (I believe) very
quality newsletter on the 'net' would be through the resaale of phone
service; something we all here are intimatly familiar with and use
daily. A close friend suggested 'why not have a fund raising drive
 from time to time, ala public radio/television', but that seemed to
me to be a bit crass, and honestly, I *hate* those fund raising
periods on Channel 11. Plus, I don't honestly feel the service I
perform here is all that good -- not as good as I would like to demand
of myself -- to make such an approach. I'd feel very guilty doing
that, particularly in bandwidth entrusted to me for telecom topics.

But when you sell things, presumably you have a loyalty to what you
are selling -- either that or you are a total charlatan perhaps, and
this presented the ethical question of 'whose side are you on as
Moderator?' ... most of you know I try to print as wide a variety of
opinion as I can here, given the limitations placed on me as a human
being who needs to sleep and work to survive, and if anything, I am
sometimes guilty of printing too much on a given topic just to insure
that no one feels they or their viewpoint were ignored. Some of you
have written to complain 'for goodness sakes, please close topic X'
after seeing several days of REplies ...

There will be no changes in Digest editorial/publication policy as a
result of my new business venture. No one should feel that unless
they use the Orange Card, my 800 numbers or my 1+ service that they
will suddenly become outcasts in this forum.  Nor do I intend to
hinder discussions about 1+ carriers, etc.  *I don't really care who
you buy these services from, as long as you will at least consider my
offerings with the understanding that your support of them means a
small portion of the revenue is returned to the Digest in the form of
residuals from the carriers I represent.*  This in turn means instead
of working for someone else 8-10 hours per day, coming home and
working on the Digest for a few hours in a dead-tired, half-awake
trance I'll be able to spend more time *doing it right* -- and I shall
be the first judge of my work here; I see many things I need to do to
make the Digest what it ought to be and what I want it to be.

I tried to pick products (the Orange Card) and services (800 numbers
and a 1+ service) I thought were good deals and not rip-offs. I do
want to hear complaints -- and god forbid, praise! -- if you use them
and enocunter problems or pleasures. The Orange Card is not exempt
 from needing 'bugs cleared up', although it is working pretty well.
The first of you to order it should be getting cards in the mail
during the week ahead ... cards one day, and PINS in separate mailing
a day or two before or after. Or you may get a form asking for more
information if there was something omitted on the form you mailed in.
By the way, we now have arrangements in place for you to charge your
Orange card calls to Visa/MC if desired, along with the $10 start up
fee. If you want this option, contact their office.

I hope my products will either be a good deal for you or at least be
no more expensive than what you are paying now ... and that if all
things are otherwise equal (if not to your advantage), you'll toss
your business my way.  *If you get treated poorly by any company I
represent, please tell me.*  Write to the Digest about it. :)

 ... So, it was either put the Digest to rest for awhile and go out to
find a 'real job' with real money or do what I really want to do,
which if you haven't guessed by now is devote more time to the Digest
and develop my own business in the process. There is only so much I
can do with $227 per week in unemployment compensation. :)

If you want to accuse me of being a money changer in the Temple, I
must plead guilty, but I hope it will never reflect in what we say and
do here in TELECOM Digest. Don't expect to see an advetisement here
every day for my products ... but they may get a casual mention every
week or two ... especially if it is the day the rent comes due.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1993 23:31:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Stand Back, Buenos Aires..."


(It was either that title or "Don't cry for me Argentina" what can I
say.)

In a recent TEELECOM Digest a user asked about my offhand comment
about the "Brazilian Telephone system, one that deserves the moniker
'worse than GTE."  The user wondered as he thought Brazil did much
better service, and perhaps thought I was mistaken.

I should simply have said "various South American countries" rather
than name any one.

I was mistaken.  The country I was thinking of *was* Argentina.  I
have heard that in Buenos Aires it is common to hire people to sit
around all day and try to get a dial tone to make a call.

My apologies to the Brazilian Telephone company for confusing it with
Argentina.  But what can they expect from us Gringos?  :)


Paul Robinson -- [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard Sherman)
Subject: How Do I Get Rid of Line Noise?
Date: 15 Mar 1993 05:28:50 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Richard Sherman)


I have my modem plugged into a Phonejak system from Phonex.  This
system routes your phone signal through your house's electrical
system.  You plug the transmitter into a wall outlet and plug a line
from your phone outlet into the transmitter.  Then you plug the
receiver into any other outlet in your house and you have a phone
jack.

The problem is I get quite a bit of line noise in the electrical
system from other things in the house (dishwashers, ovens, etc.).  I
was wondering if something like a phone line noise or surge supressor
could be put between the phone line and the modem to eliminate this?
I've already tried plugging in an electrical surge supressor into the
electrical outlet and plugging the receiver into that.  It takes out

the phone signal though.

Has anyone had any experience with this sort of setup?  Do they make
phone line noise supressors at all, aside from the ones included in a
regular surge supressor?

Any help would be appreciated.


R. Stacy Sherman     [e-mail] or
GEnie: R.SHERMAN2    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1993 05:26:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Phone Price List (3/12)


This is a list of prices for Cellular Telephones in areas as seen by
me or reported to me, for the week ending 3/12/93.  Reports of prices
in other areas of the U.S. or the world is solicited to
[e-mail].  This list was delayed due to severe weather on
the East Coast.


Washington, DC:
                    No. of   Adv.
 Brand       Model   NAMs   Price    A/R?     Comments
 Fujitsu    Stylus   Dual   399.95   Yes   Flip Phone
 Motorola   DPC550   Dual   279.95   Yes   Flip Phone
 Motorola   8000M    Dual    99.95   Yes   'Block' portable
 Motorola   TVS200   Dual    18.88   Yes   Bag Transportable
 Uniden     CP5500   Dual   199.95   Yes   Shirt Pocket model
 -No Name-  N/A      N/A     89.95   Yes   Hand Held

A 'Yes' in the column 'A/R?' indicates that activation with the
store's preferred cellular carrier and a service contract with that
carrier is required to get this price ("Activation Required").  Where
'Yes' is indicated, the price will be higher without activation.

Activation of the telephone with a cellular carrier will probably
carry additional charges and these prices will not include taxes or
local assessments.

N/A in a column means the information was not available from the
source indicated.

A 'bag' phone is one where the handset is attached to the transciever
unit which is often larger, and the transciever unit is also usually
covered with a soft material, reminiscent of a handbag.  A 'block'
portable is a handheld which looks like it was carved out of a block
of wood.  'Flip' phone is one that is "flipped open" and the bottom
part that opens covered the dial pad and is the mouthpiece.

Prices listed in this issue are based on published advertisements.
Prices may be subject to negotiation or special arrangements.

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

From: [e-mail] (Doug Krause)
Subject: Public Phone 2000
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 15 Mar 93 03:08:28 GMT


Greetings.  I'm on a Public Phone 2000 right now.  I'm in Dallas/ Fort
Worth Airport, Terminal 3-E, near gate 36.  I can't use the built-in
keyboard on the phone, but I have my laptop plugged into the data
port.  It seems to be working fairly well, but I'm at 1200 baud since
the 2400 connection was just junk.  Probably something I did wrong.  I
can hardly wait to see the bill.  :-)


Douglas Krause  [e-mail]    University of California, Irvine


[Moderator's Note: Thanks very much for taking the time and going to
the expense to send us a message from that phone. I hope your trip was
pleasant and not to someplace where the airport is shut down. By the
way can anyone give us any weather related telecom updates from the
eastern states? Are they even getting through at all?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Wasilko)
Subject: CFB & DID/OPX to Answering Service
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 93 22:13:53 EST
Organization: Air Age Publishing, Wilton CT USA
Reply-To: [e-mail]


We want to add a second fax at our office to keep up with traffic, and
we'd like to put it behind our PBX (rather than installing an
additional line for it). Can we use the CO's call-forward-busy on the
first fax line to provide roll-over to a DID number for the second
fax?

Also, we want callers who reach our auto-attendant after hours to be
able to reach our answering service if they wish to place an order.
Our auto-attendant only supports transfers to an internal extention
(to cut the risk for toll-fraud). My best guess is that a few OPX
circuits in an hunt group between our site and the answering service
would be best.

Are there any other circuit options I should keep in mind that might
be better suited/cheaper than OPXs (which are $250 to install and
$40/mo)? Should most answering services be able to terminate an OPX on
their switchboard (most services I deal with expect you to forward to
a DID number on their system)?


Thanks,

Jeff
Jeff's Oasis at Home.  Jeff can also be reached at work at:
                                       [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Henry Mensch)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 93 22:05:50 -0800
Subject: Re: Ohio Bell Making Your Life Easier
Reply-To: [e-mail]


mtndew![e-mail] (Stephen Friedl) wrote:

>> "These home office specialists can answer questions about
>> installing a business line in your home or setting up a computer modem
>> or fax machine."

> Aha, now we see it.  Not only do these trained specialists try to get
> people to sign up for business rates, but this insert starts *every*
> customer thinking that you need a business line for these above
> things.

Well, when Pacific Bell started to send similar sorts of notices, I
was similarly suspicious ... I learned that (at least for Pacific
Bell) they were not especially interested in pushing business-
tariffed services on me; they were interested in selling ordinary
home-tariffed services which would make doing occasional business at
home easier.


# henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc.  / <[e-mail]>

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

From: [e-mail] (David Lemson)
Subject: Re: Tell Me About Your Pager
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 06:23:51 GMT


[e-mail] (Steve Forrette) writes:

> What about using paging to get data TO remote equipment?  Are there
> any devices that are pagers with an RS-232 port, instead of a display?
> This way, you could send (short) commands to remote locations, without
> requiring a phone line be present.

That's a damn good idea.  If no one is doing it, someone should be.

> Also, why is there a delay in the delivery of pages?  I can understand

It all depends on the software that your paging service uses.  Our
campus service usually waits about 20-30 seconds before it sends out
the page (even with no queue waiting). I think that even up to a
minute is no big deal.  Chances are that there isn't enough of an
emergency that another minute will matter.  (Well, I suppose in a
hospital that may not be true but speaking as a computer support
person, it's hard to relate to that :-)


University of Illinois NeXT Campus Consultant / CCSO NeXT Lab System Admin
Internet : [e-mail]                UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson
NeXTMail & MIME accepted                           BITNET : LEMSON@UIUCVMD

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

From: [e-mail] (David Lemson)
Subject: Re: Cellular System A and B Info Wanted
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 06:35:17 GMT



TELECOM Moderator noted:

> telephone company in the area. For example, in Chicago, Ameritech
> Mobile is the B carrier; they also operate Illinois Bell, our telco.
> The A carriers often times use the generic name 'Cellular One'. Here
> in Chicago, Cellular One (the A carrier) is owned by Southwestern
> Bell, a telephone company in another part of the USA.  On the other
> hand, the same Southwestern Bell is the B carrier operating in the St.
> Louis, Missouri area.  So if a telco goes to the territory of some

By sheer coincidence, the non-wireline carrier in St. Louis is called
CyberTel and, unless I am mistaken, is owned by Ameritech.  :-)  Of
course, the wireline carrier in STL is called Southwestern Bell Mobile
Systems.

(Funny to see the same ads from Cellular One in Champaign/Urbana and
CyberTel in St. Louis such as for the 'family pack' around Christmas,
etc.)  In case some people are confused by this, 'Cellular One' and
'CyberTel' are just trade names that various companies pay to use in
certain markets.


David Lemson                                                [phone]
University of Illinois NeXT Campus Consultant / CCSO NeXT Lab System Admin
Internet : [e-mail]                UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson
NeXTMail & MIME accepted                           BITNET : LEMSON@UIUCVMD

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

From: hpubvwa![e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Disabling *70
Organization: very little
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 06:29:09 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Francis J Park) writes:

> I am dealing with a highly annoying roommate who is fond of turning on
> *70 to disable call waiting when he calls out voice.

> Is there any way to call the C&P business office, or perhaps TSPS
> Engineering, to disable the feature, specific to my line?

Gee, I would LOVE to have a roommate who uses this feature!  Far
better than ones who don't disable Call-Waiting, and then just ignore
the beep.


Tad Cook     |  Phone:  [phone]  (home)     |   MCI Mail: 3288544
Seattle, WA  |  Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA   |   [e-mail]
             |  Internet: [e-mail]           or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #179
******************************