amb@ai.mit.edu (Andrew M. Boardman) (11/11/90)
There are all sorts of methods these days for maintaining IP
connections over dialup lines, so the idea has been raised of normally
dialled calls as an alternative to leased lines, i.e., just making one
"permanent" phone call for one's connection. If one utilises untimed
service of some sort, the economic advantage in enormous. My
questions:
- What would one's local phone company think of this?
- In the expected case that they aren't too fond of losing
out on the megabucks for a leased line, do they have
legal ground telling you to stop?
- Since some uucp sites have so much traffic that they can
spend days on one call anyway, has anyone ever heard of
previous telco complaints in this area?john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (11/12/90)
"Andrew M. Boardman" <amb@ai.mit.edu> writes: > "permanent" phone call for one's connection. If one utilises untimed > service of some sort, the economic advantage in enormous. My > questions: > - What would one's local phone company think of this? Pac*Bell used this as one of the justifications for charging for all business local calls on a timed basis. Long data calls were specifically singled out. > - In the expected case that they aren't too fond of losing > out on the megabucks for a leased line, do they have > legal ground telling you to stop? In the case of California, this would only apply to residence service. I recently discussed this hypothetically with an associate. Telco might not be able to tell you to stop, but you can be sure that a) they would eventually notice it; and b) they would find a surefire way to regrade the service to business. The telco may not take action against a single person or company, but you can bet that a number of "permanent" unmeasured local connections would probably send telco packing to the nearest PUC to get flat-rate service discontinued. > - Since some uucp sites have so much traffic that they can > spend days on one call anyway, has anyone ever heard of > previous telco complaints in this area? I have never heard of this happening. I am familiar with some larger sites in the area, and while the modems may be off hook a major portion of the time, it is never with one call. The longest UUCP calls last on the order of 20 minutes. Besides, a business would be measured and telco couldn't care less -- the meter would be running. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
cambler@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Fubar's Carbonated Hormones) (11/13/90)
John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com> recently informed us: >"Andrew M. Boardman" <amb@ai.mit.edu> writes: >> - Since some uucp sites have so much traffic that they can >> spend days on one call anyway, has anyone ever heard of >> previous telco complaints in this area? >I have never heard of this happening. I am familiar with some larger >sites in the area, and while the modems may be off hook a major >portion of the time, it is never with one call. The longest UUCP >calls last on the order of 20 minutes. Besides, a business would be >measured and telco couldn't care less -- the meter would be running. Well, I run a Usenet carrying BBS. The incoming line is measured service residential, and the outgoing line is flat-rate residential. I told the telco-order-taking-being that the measured service number would be for a *HOBBY* BBS (read: not business), and would never be called out on. Fine. I even got a personalized number (54-FUBAR... waited a year for the previous "occupant" to "vacate" ... even offered him $50 to swap ... but I digress). The outgoing line is for UUCP connections at 2400MNP (4800). While I don't carry a full feed, the calls HAVE been known to go up to 30 hours a shot. At one point, I can recall a transfer that went for three days (had been down for a while, and news was queueing up as fast as I could get it). This was all GTE, and I have since moved to San Luis Obispo, where we have Pac*Bell. Longest call here has been on the order of eight hours. But I can forsee such long calls again. On another aspect, my feed has told me that if I buy a pair of telebits, he'll run SLIP for me ... so I *WOULD* be on the phone 99% of the time ... but remember, this is all a hobby. I take no money for my BBS ... so what do you think the phone*co would say? ++Christopher(); --- cambler@polyslo.calpoly.edu --- chris@erotica.fubarsys.com
gauthier@ug.cs.dal.ca (Paul Gauthier) (11/13/90)
In article <14595@accuvax.nwu.edu> amb@ai.mit.edu (Andrew M. Boardman) writes: [Why not make one *long* call rather than lease a line?] > - What would one's local phone company think of this? Many people have pointed out that the phone company would come after you right quick with some concocted reason to make you lose any advantage this scheme might have. If this is the case, why not simply rig the software to break the connection once daily and then redial. Maybe even less frequently depending on what duration the phone company would find distressing. PG
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (11/15/90)
cambler@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Fubar's Carbonated Hormones) writes: > While I don't carry a full feed, the > calls HAVE been known to go up to 30 hours a shot. At one point, I > can recall a transfer that went for three days (had been down for a > while, and news was queueing up as fast as I could get it). This was > all GTE, and I have since moved to San Luis Obispo, where we have > Pac*Bell. Longest call here has been on the order of eight hours. But > I can forsee such long calls again. My news/mail system DOES carry a full USENET feed, and exchanges news with no less than eight other sites. It has five modems, three of which are Telebits. Back before Telebits, eight hours was not uncommon for a news delivery. Now, the longest connection I have seen is about three hours, but that happens only when there has been constipation in the feed and backed-up news is flushing out. IMHO, any site that does any amount of news should be using high speed modems. In any event, telco has never given any flack about long local calls (on residence service). > On another aspect, my feed has told me that if I buy a pair of > telebits, he'll run SLIP for me ... so I *WOULD* be on the phone 99% > of the time ... but remember, this is all a hobby. I take no money > for my BBS ... so what do you think the phone*co would say? My experience is that telco will not give you any trouble. It might be questionable if you are trying to create a "leased line" out of an unmeasured dialup. But just "long" calls are not a problem. As far as defining what type of service you qualify for, the tarrifs are quite clear. For non-business related hobby use, you get residence. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Winslade) (11/15/90)
In message <1190094024@iugate.UUCP>, "andrew M. Boardman" writes: { ... in regards to >>VERY<< long calls } > - What would one's local phone company think of this? > - In the expected case that they aren't too fond of losing > out on the megabucks for a leased line, do they have > legal ground telling you to stop? Back around 1970 or so, there was a belief held by some members of the electronic community that if you were to order two lines (in different locations, of course), dialed one into the other and >>NEVER<< broke the connection, there would be no bill for the call, since the billing was done at the time the call was terminated. Of course I never knew anyone who really tried this. This supposedly would work whether the endless call was local or across the country. This idea was reinforced when an employee of AT&T Long Lines told me that there was a good chance that after several months, after the billing tapes were changed several times or something like that, there was a good chance that the equipment would 'forget' about the connection and never bill at all, even if/when it was terminated. Yes, I know about 'chasing permanents', but this was in the NYC area circa 1970, where many of the offices were aging panel and #1 crossbar that were held together with scotch tape and typically had such things like unused twisted-pair jumpers banjo-strung all over the frames. The switch crews were busy just keeping the switches up, let alone tracing permanents (if the PS lamps weren't burned out. ;-) There was some kind of a tape-based CAMA system that billed a whole group of offices from a central point. I think some of the offices still billed for local units with 'odometer' type counters which were photographed each month. Maybe some of the 'experts' on billing systems could confirm if this was true at that time. I am, of course, assuming that if it were true, the case has been dealt with and the modern billing software is smart enough to catch it and bill for it. Good Day! JSW [1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (1:285/666) --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (11/18/90)
Jack Winslade <Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org> writes: > Yes, I know about 'chasing permanents', but this was in the NYC area > circa 1970, where many of the offices were aging panel and #1 crossbar > that were held together with scotch tape and typically had such things > like unused twisted-pair jumpers banjo-strung all over the frames. > The switch crews were busy just keeping the switches up, let alone > tracing permanents (if the PS lamps weren't burned out. ;-) There was > some kind of a tape-based CAMA system that billed a whole group of > offices from a central point. I think some of the offices still > billed for local units with 'odometer' type counters which were > photographed each month. A little clarification on the term "permanent signal" is in order. A telephone that has been off the hook for a long time is not necessarily a "permanent signal" and it most certainly is not if connected to another telephone through the network. PS refers to lines that have come off-hook and are pulling dial tone without dialing, or have been involved with conversation and have failed to go on-hook at call termination. There is no need to "trace permanents". When a line comes off hook and the dial tone times out, it generally goes to a howler trunk for a few minutes to attempt to alert the customer of the off-hook condition and then it is connected to a PS trunk. This is what the PS lamps are connected to. A glance at the board will show how may lines are PS at any given moment. It is a simple matter to identify a particular line associated with a given PS trunk. A major alarm condition exists if many lines go PS at once. This is usually indicative of cable failure and can bring down an office if corrective action isn't taken immediately. The offending cable is usually identified so that it can be cut loose from the switch until it is repaired. Anyway, a permanent signal is quite different from a "long call". As to whether a charge can be avoided by making the call long enough so that it spans mulitple call recording media, this has long been rumored but not confirmed by anyone I know. My suspicion is that it won't work, since a call record is laid down at the conclusion of the call, being held in memory until written to tape. The data recorders that I have seen at Pac*Bell don't even write each call, but wait until many calls are ready to be written and then the tape barely moves, writing many call records. > Maybe some of the 'experts' on billing systems could confirm if this > was true at that time. I am, of course, assuming that if it were > true, the case has been dealt with and the modern billing software is > smart enough to catch it and bill for it. Possibly this would have worked back in the days of the punched tape, since I believe the start time and end time for a call were written to the tape at the moment of occurrance. When the tapes were read by the billing office, the start time was linked to the matching end time to provide the call "ticket". How far apart these would have to be to cause a ticket to disappear is unknown. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) (11/19/90)
In article <68873@bu.edu.bu.edu> Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.f idonet.org (Jack Winslade) writes: >In message <1190094024@iugate.UUCP>, "andrew M. Boardman" writes: >{ ... in regards to >>VERY<< long calls } >> - What would one's local phone company think of this? >> - In the expected case that they aren't too fond of losing >> out on the megabucks for a leased line, do they have >> legal ground telling you to stop? >Back around 1970 or so, there was a belief held by some members of the > [ much interesting text deleted ] >Maybe some of the 'experts' on billing systems could confirm if this >was true at that time. I am, of course, assuming that if it were >true, the case has been dealt with and the modern billing software is >smart enough to catch it and bill for it. I can't speak to 1970 or local phone companies, either. But you might be interested to know that at 8:00 AM every morning the Tech-In-Charge at the Fairbanks Toll Center gets a print out of any (usually there are none) AMA records that are excessively long. I personally wrote the little program that scans the logs and looks for any such log reports. But of course we are an LD carrier, so our *hope* is that it is a real call! But we check out every one of them just to prevent someone getting a huge bill when it is our fault. In fact most of them end up being a telco dialed into a milliwatt test or something to that effect. Floyd L. Davidson floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu floydd@chinet.chi.il.us Salcha, AK 99714 connected by paycheck to Alascom, Inc. When *I* speak for them, one of us will be *out* of business in a hurry.
roberson@uunet.uu.net (CharlesChip Roberson) (11/27/90)
A friend of mine works from home and also operates a BBS. He recently moved from the Washington, DC area to Raleigh, NC. Apparently it is a common practice for BBSes to take a modem off-hook when the system is down or the sysop is performing maintenance. In DC this wasn't a problem but in Raleigh, every time this happens the phone company disconnects his line and charges him $35 to reconnect his line. He can reconfigure the BBS program to not go off-hook but his mailer can hang the modem in an off-hook state at various times. Needless to say, this has become quite expensive to him. The last time this happened, it wasn't with the BBS it was with his development computer. The power supply started to go on the day before thanksgiving so he turned off the system and replaced the PS the day after Thanksgiving. When he turned it back on, the phone company had cut him off. I think he has had his phone lines re-connected four times over the last month. Is this standard practice for phone companies to react so strongly to off-hook lines? Obviously, he is doing everything he can to avoid leaving his modem off-hook but every now and then he still gets nailed. Is there a more user friendly (cheaper) way to take care/avoid of this? Thanks, chip * Work: 2912 Wake Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27609 (919) 850-5011 * (...!mcnc!aurgate!roberson) || (roberson%aurgate@mcnc.org) || * (71500.2056@CompuServe.com) || (Chip.Roberson@f112.n151.z1.fidonet.org) #include <disclaimer.h>
Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com (12/01/90)
Charles "Chip" Roberson <aurs01!roberson@uunet.uu.net> writes: >In DC this wasn't a problem but in Raleigh, every time [the line is >left off hook] the phone company disconnects his line and charges him >$35 to reconnect his line. Your friend should check the tarriffs and see if there's anything that allows the phone company to charge for recovering from a permanent signal, or to disconnect a line when it goes to permanent signal. Also, it would be and interesting (though expensive) exercise to leave a line not associated with a computer (or a sysop) off-hook and see if that line is treated the same. There may be a case of discrimination against BBS operators. edg
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (12/01/90)
Charles "Chip" Roberson <aurs01!roberson@uunet.uu.net> writes: > but in Raleigh, every time this happens the phone company > disconnects his line and charges him $35 to reconnect his line. > Is this standard practice for phone companies to react so strongly to > off-hook lines? No, it is not. And there is absolutely no reason, given any switch other than SXS to behave in this manner. It is a scam to increase revenue and nothing else. In any common control switch (virtually anything other than SXS, electronic or mechanical), provision has been made for PS (unintentional off-hook lines). After a maximum of 30 seconds, the register that receives incoming dialing is released and the line is connected to a howler trunk and then to a PS holding trunk. Telcos usually have the PS holding trunk set to return the line to service automatically when the fault is cleared. The only facility being used by a PSed line in the end is a position on the PS trunk bank, which should have more than enough capacity for any condition short of cable failure. What if the PS was caused by a cable splicer or lineman? Would you still have to pay $35? How would you prove it? The only thing close to this practice that I am aware of in CA concerns DID trunks on a 1/1AESS. The customer's PBX normally supplies battery back to the CO. If this battery is lost for more than 30 seconds or so, either because of switch failure or momentary disconnection of the pair, the CO switch busys out the trunk "permanently". To restore it, it is necessary to call repair service and have them reset the trunk. This is done at no charge. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Winslade) (12/08/90)
In a message of <30 Nov 90 18:30:56>, John Higdon writes: >Charles "Chip" Roberson <aurs01!roberson@uunet.uu.net> writes: >> but in Raleigh, every time this happens the phone company >> disconnects his line and charges him $35 to reconnect his line. >> Is this standard practice for phone companies to react so strongly to >> off-hook lines? >No, it is not. And there is absolutely no reason, given any switch >other than SXS to behave in this manner. It is a scam to increase >revenue and nothing else. AAAAAArrrrgh! I'm certainly glad they do not do that here. Not only do I have the BBS set to 'busy out' during the daily maintenance 'batch' processes, our cats have been known to knoch the receiver of the voice phone off the hook and onto the floor. Sometimes we'll hear the 'clanking' and hang it up, but it's been off hook overnight. I wonder if the telco in Raleigh would tromp on that ?? Also, one time when we had a temporary line at our just-finished house, we found that the former user of that number received all kinds of calls (long distance, from the sounds) at all hours. The first night we had that, we had to take the phone off hook to get some sleep. I wonder if that telco has the [fill in an anatomic part, 'guts' will suffice] to charge $35 for that ?? Good Day! JSW --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org