A Beginner's Guide to the Internet/INTERNET.ISO/text/telediag/tc13-093.txt

Text File | 1996-05-06 | 18.6 KB | 438 lines

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 14 Feb 93 15:09:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 93

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (John Higdon)
    Re: Rochester Tel Wants to Split (Eli Mantel)
    Re: Using Fax Machine + Fax Modem as a Scanner (Gordon Grant)
    Re: Southwestern Bell to Buy Cable Systems (J. Philip Miller)
    Re: Running Out of Area Codes (Steven H. Lichter)
    Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE (Steven H. Lichter)
    Re: What Could Happen! (Tony Pelliccio)
    Re: Telex <=> RS-232 (Nino Margetic)
    Some Discounts REQUIRE You to Change Your Dial-1 Carrier (Marc Kozam)
    Re: Stupid Phone Tricks (Bruce Sullivan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 02:17 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening?


[e-mail] (Jack Decker) writes:

> Why not use both carriers?  I would suggest you do this: Switch your
> line to MCI and use them for all your voice calls.

As previously stated, I would suggest the opposite. Keep AT&T as your
PIC. That way you have much easier access to AT&T's vastly superior
operator services. I really hate it when I pick up a phone, dial an
operator assisted call and have one of the "brand X" operators answer.
MY guests never have to deal with that.

> If there is a location that you have consistent problems calling via
> MCI, by all means call up MCI's customer service and complain!

Good luck. MCI droids are worthless. You will never reach a resolution
on the first try. You will be lucky to even ever speak to anyone who
even knows what you are talking about. You should see the hell we go
through ANYtime we have to deal with even the slightest technical
matter with MCI.

> AT&T spends a LOT of money on advertising to convince you that their
> quality is better.

If your definition of quality is "does the call (eventually) go
through and can I hear the person at the other end?", then I would
agree that such an advertising statement is probably meaningless.  But
AT&T is still the only company where you can actually speak to a
knowledgeable technician on the first call and speak to a rep who
actually knows about the service in question and can give you real
answers.

> If you try a call over MCI and it doesn't work, and you then try to
> complete it over AT&T and it does, that doesn't necessarily mean that
> AT&T is better, it just means you got a different circuit from the
> local telco.  Had you tried your second attempt on MCI again, you
> would probably have been just as satisfied with the result.

Not necessarily true. MCI and Sprint outages are legion and legendary.
Sprint is constantly suffering from local outages here in the Bay Area
and MCI's answer to a complaint about calls not going through is for
the caller to dial '10288' before the number. Sure is a good thing
AT&T is there when you REALLY need to call.

> AT&T's new fax commercials really get me ...

Yes, they annoy me as well. But since I do not use media advertising
as a basis upon which to select a carrier (pro or con), AT&T's
commercials do not send me into a tailspin, ignoring reality and the
facts. And the fact is that AT&T remains the most responsive,
comprehensive, and consistently the highest quality IEC in the world.
Its operator services are not even in the same universe as the
pretenders. Yes, MCI, Sprint and a host of other carriers have some
specific services and plans that MAY (but not necessarily) be
incrementally cheaper than AT&T, but for most purposes involving FGD
long distance, the company's services are hard to beat.

MCI and Sprint are slowly (very slowly) getting better and better. But
the truth is that AT&T is also beginning to smell the coffee. Right
now Sprint is hawking its "digital network with the most modern
signaling", etc., etc. The thrust is that it was the leader in digital
telephony.  What a laugh. Who do you supposed invented it? AT&T did
misread the importance of "digital quality", and lagged in giving
digital connections to customers. But when Sprint started making hay
with it, AT&T became fully digital in very short order (the network
WAS already in place, long before Sprint even thought about it).

And advanced signaling? Calls on AT&T complete in a split second; in
about eight seconds with Sprint. Yes, it is because AT&T is connected
via SS7 to my telco and Sprint (for whatever reason) is not. But it
goes to illustrate the stupidity of the advertising and how
intelligence is not to be gained by listening to it.

Both MCI and Sprint have experienced major billing problems and then
demonstrated a serious lack of ability to handle them. Yes, I had a
billing problem with AT&T that turned out to be Pac*Bell's problem.
But AT&T did not attempt to ruin my credit and turn me over to a
collection agency as Sprint did. (Sprint ended up giving me a $50
credit over and above all of the disputed amounts as a "good will"
gesture, but I really prefer having it done right to begin with.)

I have no stock or interest in AT&T. But every time I have used MCI or
Sprint for whatever reason, some monster rears its head and a major
inadequacy is revealed.


John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]     |       FAX:
[e-mail] | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Eli Mantel)
Subject: Re: Rochester Tel Wants to Split
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 19:49:59 GMT


Rochester Telephone is being lauded for its plan to provide competition
for local telephone services, but I wonder whether what's best for
Rochester Telephone is also best for its customers.

As I understand the proposal, the bulk of the capital investment that
Rochester Telephone owns will remain in the regulated portion of the
company.  Telephone customers will purchase telephone service through
companies that are essentially aggregators.  These aggregators will be
free to design different packages of telephone services to offer
potential customers.

 From the viewpoint of public policy, it is almost always best that
services be priced as closely as possible to their true (incremental)
cost.  Achieving this goal is rather problematic when the bulk of the
costs are in fixed plant and equipment, whether pricing is done
through competition or regulation.

Whereas regulation provides at least some tie-in between the cost of
providing service and the pricing of that service, the proposed
solution will most likely result in offerings that tie prices to a
perception of value.  Simply put, for the residential user, flat-rate
telephone service is likely to be priced substantially higher than it
is now, because there will be some significant portion of customers
for whom flat-rate service will still be a better *value*, even at a
much higher price.

Bear in mind that these aggregators will not be adding any significant
value to the telephone services.  All they will offer will be what's
available thorugh the existing telephone switches.  They will pay one
(regulated) price for these features, and resell them for a higher
price.  This is pretty much what cable companies do with premium
services.  They buy HBO for, say, $3.00 per month for each subscriber
signed up, and then resell it to us at $10.00 per month.  While they
have "added value" by virtue of providing a physical cable connection
(which is already covered by the costs of basic cable service), their
main contribution is "marketing".

Why is Rochester Telephone supporting this plan?  Well, the regulated
portion will retain the bulk of the assets.  That ensures that they
continue to receive the same level of profitability on those assets.
They certainly hope that the unregulated portion will get a good
portion of the market share.  Short of an outright gouging of their
customer base, they can expect to succeed at retaining the bulk of
their customers.

I'm no expert on this topic.  Some of my facts may be wrong, and the
resulting conclusions may therefore be unwarranted.  I would love to
hear convincing evidence that Rochester Telephone's proposal is really
going to be in the public interest.


Eli Mantel ([e-mail])

The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
  North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
     Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
        internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

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

From: [e-mail] (Gordon Grant)
Subject: Re: Using Fax Machine + Fax Modem as a Scanner
Organization: Joint European Torus
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 13:20:17 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert J
Barth) writes:

> How can I use a standalone fax machine as a scanner?


> I would like to be able to plug my fax machine into my pc fax/modem,
> and press a few buttons, and end up with a fax format file of whatever
> was on the sheet of paper ...

> Has anyone managed this?  I've tried with not much success so far ...

I have succeeded with this using my Samsung sf1000 Fax machine and my
ZyXEL 1496e modem. The modem was driven with ZyXEL's Zfax software.

The technique is to plug both units into the same phone line, using a
plug-in adaptor. The Zfax software is run up and the cursor set on the
Manual receive fax option. On the fax machine lift the hand set and
dial a single digit to fool the machine that a number has been dialed,
then press send.  Remove the adaptor from the wall socket and start
the Zfax software to receive the fax.

I needed to remove the adaptor from the wall socket to stop Miss "
bossy boots" BT from injecting " you have dialed incorrectly -- please
replace the handset and try again" I needed it there initially to give
a dial tone to the Fax M/C.

I suspect that this may be more difficult with a cleverer Fax machine.
Sometimes that well known brand "THE CHEAPEST" does have some
advantages.

I must credit this method to my son James who wanted to include some
maps into his GCSE Geography Project. It works very well and Zfax can
convert the results to several bitmapped file formats.

Now who knows how to convert a Word-for-Windows document into a format
that Zfax can send as a fax?


[e-mail]              Gordon Grant           Jet Abingdon OX14 3EA UK
Fidonet: (2:253/170)   Voice [phone]   Fax [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (J. Philip Miller)
Subject: Re: Southwestern Bell to Buy Cable Systems
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 12:56:30 -0600 (CST)


[e-mail]  (Karl Johnson) writes:

> This would be the first Baby Bell to own a Cable
> Company, and could according to The Post "alter the debate surrounding
> federal telecommunications policy."

Actually the {St. Louis Post Dispatch} points out that SWBT already
owns cable companies in the UK and has interests in ones in Israel.
This would just be the first by any of the Baby Bells in the US.

Bell Atlantic is challenging restrictions on providing video services
within its telephone service.  Art Bushkin, president of Bell Atlantic
Information Services is quoted as saying "It is time for the obsolete
restrictions of the AT&T Consent Decree and the Cable Act of 1984 to
fall."

Jim Krekeler, a securities analyst with Edward D. Jones & Co is quoted
as saying "It's no accident that [buying a cable system in] Washington
DC happens to be a tremendous way to lobby the House and the Senate.
If you put all the bells and whistles on the system, you could impress
Congress on the [telephone industry's] ability to run the system and
have it benefit the consumer."


  J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
      Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
       [e-mail] - [phone] [362-2694(FAX)]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven H. Lichter)
Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes
Date: 14 Feb 1993 20:08:43 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)


It is my understanding that only the areas that are in the City of Los
Angeles; downtown only remained 213 and the others went to 310. Those
areas are West LA and such. At least that is the way it was meant to
be and explained to us.

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven H. Lichter)
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE
Date: 14 Feb 1993 20:12:35 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)


We just were notified that PacBell will be offering Call Trace, last
number call back. You will not know the number in either case, but
that would mean to me that they are not blocking the calls ID. It
maybe a SS7 problem or lack of.


Steven H. Lichter    GTECalif COEI



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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 15:16:32 EST
From: Tony Pelliccio <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Could Happen! (Bangkok, Thailand Telecom Uprising)


Similar things happen here in the US. A few years ago New England
Telephone went on strike and lo and behold, a few of the key fiber
trunks got cut.

Additionally, telecom facilities are pretty well marked here in the
US, and if you wanted, you could knock out communications to a small
residential area, or halt ALL long distance traffic from a city.

Besides, I really don't think something like that would happen here
since the service isn't all that bad. Granted, we do pay a fairly good
chunk but in comparison to other countries, we're not doing too badly
here in the U.S.


Tony Pelliccio    n1mpq @ garlic.sbs.com    pjj125 @ uriacc.uri.edu

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

From: [e-mail] (Nino Margetic)
Subject: Re: Telex <=> RS-232
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 19:38:56 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Nino Margetic)
Organization: University College London


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert
Horvitz) writes:

> We have this big old and very loud telex machine in our office.  We'd
> like to get rid of it and integrate telex with our LAN.  Surely we're
> not the first to have this idea.  Assuming the wheel has already been
> invented, can someone explain how to do this?  Is there a particular
> kind of modem designed for interfacing DOS machines with telex
> circuits?

I opted for a follow-up rather than reply for two reasons. Firstly,
someone will probably know more than I do, and secondly, I have also a
question regarding telex usage on PCs.  Here goes: ad 1) there are a
number of telex cards for PCs, which you simply plug into an expansion
port of your PC, and off you go. The price range (here in the UK) is
from, say, 700GBP to 3000-4000GBP. It works quite well, in general. In
particular, you get what you pay for.  Namely, a friend of mine bought
a 700GBP card from an UK company, and now he is stuck with good card,
and *absolutely* abysmal software which runs it.

And, now we come to the second thing, i.i. the question. Does anyone
know, if there is a "standard" (say, like class 2 in fax/modems, or
CAS -- *please* let us *not* engage now in the war about whether two
mentioned really *are* standards), for talking to telex boards, or,
are we at the mercy of the manufacturer of each board (i.e. everything
is propriatory)?? I have now spent three days trying to fix/improve
the original software for the telex board (if it matters to anyone,
it's called PROCOM 20), but without much luck. I would very much like
to sit down and write my own software for sneding and receiving
telexes.  It shouldn't be to hard, since there is a TSR (called
PROBACK), which does all the dirty work, but I do not know how to talk
to it ...

Any suggestions/info are *very* welcome.

BTW, we *did* talk to the company about improvements, but they are not
interested in fixing it, or making a new version ...


Nino

Janet: [e-mail]
Earn/Bitnet/Internet: [e-mail]  University College London, UK
Bang: ...!mcvax!uknet!ucl!n.margetic        [phone] x 53 13

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 10:26:43 EST
From: mlksoft![e-mail]
Subject: Some Discounts REQUIRE You to Change Your Dial-1 Carrier


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> Frontline salesslime will tell you that you have to "switch" to take
> advantage of a particular plan, but that is 99.9% hogwash.


    This is true.  I used to have Sprint as my dial-1 carrier, but
almost exclusively used AT&T's ROA program to make calls (prepending
10288 before each call).  Setting it up caused the usual confusion.

    I suspect the other 0.1% refers to the many offers I receive
in the mail, e.g. "Make AT&T your long distance company and get $ 50."
In the fine print, it REQUIRES that they be your dial-1 carrier.


Marc Kozam    UUCP: {media,mimsy}!mlksoft!kozam
        Internet: mlksoft![e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 19:46 GMT
From: Bruce Sullivan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Stupid Phone Tricks


Here in our data center, we have several dozen flat business lines
which are used solely for dial backup purposes (outbound only). They
are unlisted. The bottom line is, any calls that would come in on them
would be wrong numbers.

Typically, a phone ends up being left plugged into one of the lines
and, of course, the phone occasionally rings. The normal approach
would be to pick it up and answer in a business-like fashion ("XYZ
Data Processing, may I help you?"), whereupon you would typically be
hung up upon.

One day, in a fit of whimsy, I instead picked it up and said, in my
best telco monotone,

"I'm sorry, the number you have reached has been disconnected or is no
longer in service. If you feel ..."

They hung up.  Less than five seconds later, it rang AGAIN. This time,
I picked it up and said,

"I SAID, the number you have reached has been disconnected or is no
longer in service ..."

They still hung up, but didn't call back.


[Moderator's Note: Clever response. Since you only make outgoing calls
on those lines occassionally, and never have incoming calls, you
should ask telco to set the lines up as one-way outgoing service only.
Then you'd never see any wrong numbers at all.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #93
*****************************