RANCK@VTVM1.BITNET ("Wm. L. Ranck") (10/19/87)
Ah yes . . . dealing with the phone company. Several years ago I was installing and maintaining limited distance data sets on leased 4-wire circuits that our local phone company provided. As leased circuits they didn't have regular phone numbers associated with them just circuit numbers. At fairly regular intervals one of these would become noisy and I would simply hook an oscilloscope to the pairs and verfy that there was really something wrong with the telco wire and then call the repair service. That is when the fun started. First the people who took the repair calls didn't want to believe that the line didn't have a phone number. Eventually I'd convince them to take the circuit number instead, but I had to re-convince them each time. I would tell them the circuit was noisy and then hang up. Almost exactly 20 minutes later I would get a phone call from a technician asking what I meant by a noisy circuit. I learned rather quickly that I shouldn't mention that I had used an oscilloscope on the line, because that really upset them for some reason that I could never figure out. Anyway, I then had to convince the technician that I wasn't crazy and that there really was a problem with that circuit. Usually I'd get the 'it looks OK to me' response, but with a little persistence they would check something that the telco people refer to as 'carbons'. Those are apparently lightning protection devices (maybe MOVs ?) that will get leaky and cause some ground loop noise problems. The frequency of problems went up during thunderstorm season. So leaky lightning protection devices are also a possible problem. It's nice to know that the local phone companies haven't really changed much since the breakup. Bill Ranck
ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (10/20/87)
By the way, the leased lines do have "phone numbers" in addition to the circuit number. These are screw ball numbers that show up with the bill that don't really look like phone numbers, but it is how they index the billing records. These numbers are usually necessary before the phone company can do anything for you. -Ron
obie@dartvax.UUCP (Timothy D. Notestein) (10/22/87)
Just thinking about the $4.47 added 'tax' or whatever it was called,.... Couldn't this be in response (via pressure of some kind) to the PC Pursuit package? the lost revenue to AT&T (and companys-LD) because everyone calls their LOCAL telenet node?
patth@dasys1.UUCP (Patt Haring) (10/23/87)
In article <7443@dartvax.UUCP>, obie@dartvax.UUCP (Timothy D. Notestein) writes: > > Couldn't this be in response (via pressure of some kind) to the > PC Pursuit package? the lost revenue to AT&T (and companys-LD) > because everyone calls their LOCAL telenet node? > The FCC so craftily worded its' proposal of the $4.47/hr charge that many BBS users and sysops are still yet unaware that the hourly charge would apply to *them* as well as CIS, The SOURCE, GEnie, etc. Interstate calls to BBS will have to be paid for with the $4.47/hr charge; I hope everyone has sent a letter of protest to his/her Congressperson as well as to the FCC. -- Patt Haring UUCP: ..cmcl2!phri!dasys1!patth Big Electric Cat Compu$erve: 76566,2510 New York, NY, USA MCI Mail: 306-1255; GEnie: PHaring (212) 879-9031 FidoNet Mail: 1:107/132 or 107/222
andy@rbdc.UUCP (Andy Pitts) (10/23/87)
I was working as an engineer at a local tv station one night. At that time we got our network feeds from telco. About 9:00 we lost color burst. I called TV central in NY. and told the head technician we had lost color burst. His reply was "What's color burst". I knew then I was in trouble. Andy Pitts ...!gladys!rbdc!andy
jack@swlabs.UUCP (Jack Bonn) (10/25/87)
In article <1768@dasys1.UUCP>, patth@dasys1.UUCP (Patt Haring) writes: > Interstate calls to BBS will have to be paid for with the > $4.47/hr charge; I hope everyone has sent a letter of protest > to his/her Congressperson as well as to the FCC. I trust that you are indicating that the $4.47/hr charge will only be tacked on to PC Pursuit and other packet networks. If I call interstate via the DDD network, the DDD charges would remain the same, wouldn't they? I think that this FCC proposal is an attempt to put Telenet and Tymnet out of business. I can get a Trailblazer modem and dial direct (in my circumstances) and have the modem paid off in less than 5.5 months. And yes, I've already done my letter writing. -- Jack Bonn, <> Software Labs, Ltd, Box 451, Easton CT 06612 uunet!swlabs!jack
patth@dasys1.UUCP (10/28/87)
In article <738@swlabs.UUCP>, jack@swlabs.UUCP (Jack Bonn) writes: > In article <1768@dasys1.UUCP>, patth@dasys1.UUCP (Patt Haring) writes: > > Interstate calls to BBS will have to be paid for with the > > $4.47/hr charge; I hope everyone has sent a letter of protest > > to his/her Congressperson as well as to the FCC. > > I trust that you are indicating that the $4.47/hr charge will only be > tacked on to PC Pursuit and other packet networks. If I call interstate > via the DDD network, the DDD charges would remain the same, wouldn't they? > Jack Bonn, <> Software Labs, Ltd, Box 451, Easton CT 06612 Jack, The way the Boston Computer Society and others are reading the craftily worded FCC Proposal is this: not *only* would the $4.77 charge be tacked on to PC PURSUIT (if you're using it) but would also be tacked on to your call to an out of state BBS - that means twice that you get hit with the $4.77 charge! For example, if I dial in to PC PURSUIT and use it to call the Boston Computer Society's Telecom BBS (617-786-9788) then I'm hit twice with the $4.77 charge - once because I called the Packet Switching Network and the second time becuse I used it to call an out of state BBS. *arrrgghhhh* -- Patt Haring UUCP: ..cmcl2!phri!dasys1!patth Big Electric Cat Compu$erve: 76566,2510 New York, NY, USA MCI Mail: 306-1255; GEnie: PHaring (212) 879-9031 FidoNet Mail: 1:107/132 or 107/222
dmkdmk@ecsvax.UUCP (10/29/87)
In article <1827@dasys1.UUCP>, patth@dasys1.UUCP (Patt Haring) writes: > In article <738@swlabs.UUCP>, jack@swlabs.UUCP (Jack Bonn) writes: > > In article <1768@dasys1.UUCP>, patth@dasys1.UUCP (Patt Haring) writes: > > > Interstate calls to BBS will have to be paid for with the > > > $4.47/hr charge; I hope everyone has sent a letter of protest > > > to his/her Congressperson as well as to the FCC. > > > > I trust that you are indicating that the $4.47/hr charge will only be > > tacked on to PC Pursuit and other packet networks. If I call interstate > The way the Boston Computer Society and others are reading the > craftily worded FCC Proposal is this: not *only* would the $4.77 > charge be tacked on to PC PURSUIT (if you're using it) but would > also be tacked on to your call to an out of state BBS - that means > twice that you get hit with the $4.77 charge! For example, if > I dial in to PC PURSUIT and use it to call the Boston Computer > Society's Telecom BBS (617-786-9788) then I'm hit twice with the > $4.77 charge - once because I called the Packet Switching Network > and the second time becuse I used it to call an out of state BBS. This is not the case as I understand it or the intent of the FCC proposal. The proposal if passed will place a $4.77 charge to services that provide packet switching services i.e. Telenet, Tymnet, CompuServe's network. This will *NOT* apply to private BBSs in any way. It will though restrict value-added network services such as PC Pursuit, and thus change the way computer enthusiasts access BBSs that would normally be long distance if dialed over the voice network. If it were imposed on all calls to ANY interstate BBS, then the telephone cos. would have to monitor ALL calls through their networks to detect carrier frequencies. People who use the call switched voice networks (such as AT&T) would not be subject to this charge. In short, this whole issue has become myths vs. realities and somewhat been blown out of proportion by those who use these services. It will not affect me in any way - I dial direct from North Carolina to a BBS in New Jersey quite frequently using AT&T long distance. If that same call were on PC Pursuit, then it would be a different story. While I do believe this proposal will harm some BBSs and other information services, the reasoning behind it can be justified from a non-data communicating consumer standpoint. Personally I take no stance either way. Hope this sets the record straight and alleviates some misconceptions. Good day, -- David M. Kurtiak UNC - Greensboro UUCP: dmkdmk@ecsvax.UUCP Bitnet: DMKDMK@ECSVAX.BITNET