TELECOM-REQUEST@BU-IT.BU.EDU (The Moderator, JSol) (09/26/87)
TELECOM Digest Fri, 25 Sep 87 22:11:19 EDT Volume 7 : Issue 34
Today's Topics:
sprint lawsuit
Telephone Chip?
Re: Sprint "Lawsuit"?
phone # on pay phones
Submission for comp-dcom-telecom
Re: 0+ pay phone calls
"Ringmaster service"
AT&T, Baby Bells getting into data networks
[This is the last digest to be sent from BU-IT.BU.EDU. All further
digests will go through XX.LCS.MIT.EDU. All TELECOM pointers (including
-REQUEST) now point to XX. Also, today is the only day that individual
message readers will see a digest. Starting tomorrow we will resume
sending individual messages. --JSol and Jim]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: SPGDCM%UCBCMSA.Berkeley.EDU@jade.Berkeley.EDU
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 87 20:17:26 PDT
To: telecom@bu-it.bu.edu
Subject: sprint lawsuit
MSG:FROM: SPGDCM --UCBCMSA TO: NETWORK --NETWORK 09/18/87 20:17:25
To: NETWORK --NETWORK Network Address
From: Doug Mosher <SPGDCM at UCBCMSA>
MVS/Tandem Systems Manager (415)642-5823
Evans 257, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA 94720
Subject: sprint lawsuit
To: telecom@buit1.bu.edu
Here's what I know plus what I intuited from the sprint notice:
In the past (and still now? not clear) sprint charged regular rates for little
short "calls" that did not result in an answer. Like it takes say 30 seconds
to place a call, hear four rings, no answer, and hang up.
Not clear if they charged for all or many or some of these. Has to do with
their not having as good a connection as AT&T technically, so they can't
detect answers (as well or at all?).
Somebody did a class action suit and won; now in the settlement they are
asking each of us to choose either flat or estimated reimbursement IF WE HAD
SUCH PROBLEMS.
I can't remember if I had any, can't estimate how many, and find the whole
thing a bother. I might be a real liar if I certify I had any or so many of
them. And I figured the whole deal amounts to plus or minus say $3 for me.
I actually threw it out.
Now look, I am in favor of class action suits, and this is one more case where
Sprint blew it (the other case was where they charged the wrong rates during
holidays a year or so ago, and didn't even fix it in general when they knew
about it; another class action suit slapped them BIG for that one.)
But I am beginning to think that the results of such suits should be for the
company to get punished, and for the money to go to: charity, public interest
groups, education, or whatever. As this stands, then tiny dribs of money go to
a mixture of those even more compulsive, or even less honest, than me, and
those are weird folks I'll tell you.
sprint lawsuit
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 87 20:27:11 edt
From: sr16+@andrew.cmu.edu (Seth Benjamin Rothenberg)
To: telecom@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Telephone Chip?
I know that Motorola makes a speakerphone-on-a-chip; does anyone know of a
telephone-on-a-chip? It need not have a dialing circuit in it, as I won't be
using it.
Thanks
Seth Rothenberg
sr16@andrew.cmu.edu
rochester!pt!andrew.cmu.edu!sr16
sbrst@cisunx
sbrst@pittvms.bitnet
------------------------------
Date: 21 Sep 87 10:59:23 EDT (Monday)
From: Wegeng.Henr@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: Sprint "Lawsuit"?
To: howie%BKLYN.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Cc: TELECOM@BU-IT.BU.EDU, Wegeng.Henr@Xerox.COM
There are probably more knowledgable people on the net, but here's my 2
cents worth. I interpreted the letter to mean that several class action
suits had been brought against Sprint over their well known practice of
billing customers for any call that lasts over 30 seconds from the time
that the phone starts ringing, whether the recipent answers the phone or
not. I don't have the letter in front of me, but in general the proposed
settlement contains two options:
1) credit for any call meeting the above description for which no credit
has been previously granted, or
2) a small amount of credit (3 minutes, I think) for each year that the
customer has subscribed to Sprint.
Obviously this favors people who have saved all of their old bills and
can therefore account for more than six unanswered calls per year. On
the other hand, if you requested credit for the calls at the time you
were billed (which I usually did) then the settlement doesn't really
affect you.
/Don
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 87 9:18:05 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL.ARPA>
To: telecom@BRL.ARPA
Subject: phone # on pay phones
On a recent trip, I stopped at a pay phone on a roadside and made a call,
but I also called the operator and asked what the number was (since it
was not displayed; only the area code). I was told they are not allowed
to give out the number for pay phones. Can anyone send me any reasons?
(I can consolidate if necessary.)
Does this have anything to do with the appearance of the word "coin" or
similar expression in lieu of place name on a phone bill alongside call
made to or from pay phone?
------------------------------
From: ssc-vax!clark@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Roger Clark Swann)
Date: 21 Sep 87 14:33:16 GMT
To: uw-beaver!comp-dcom-telecom@beaver.cs.washington.edu
Subject: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom
Path: ssc-vax!clark
From: clark@ssc-vax.UUCP (Roger Clark Swann)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 0+ pay phone calls
Keywords: area codes
Message-ID: <1444@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: 21 Sep 87 14:33:15 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Corp., Seattle WA
Lines: 25
------------------------------
In article <8709110931.aa20340@VGR.BRL.ARPA>, cmoore@BRL.ARPA (Carl Moore, VLD/VMB) writes:
> A C&P pay phone in Elkton which is on 301-398 prefix has new calling
> instructions. Maryland is running out of NNX prefixes, and apparently
> provision is being made to switch to NXX prefixes.
> Station-to-station: local--(7 digit) number
> toll-- 1 + area code + number
> All 0+ calls require area code.
> (Yes, "area code" can include 301.)
I remembered the above article when I needed to make a local pay phone
call this past weekend. I wanted to bill the local to my calling
card, so I used the 0+ followed by the numbers. On the first try I,
included the area code as part of the local number I wanted to
reach. This did NOT work, (got a re-order recording). On the second
try I left off the area code and the call went right through.
So, I guess that we in the Seattle area are behind the rest of the
world for now. Check back in the year 2000 and maybe we will have
caught up by then...:-)
Roger Swann uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark
I disavow any knowledge of my actions.
------------------------------
To: TELECOM-request@BUIT1.BU.EDU
Subject: "Ringmaster service"
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 87 16:21:49 PDT
From: David G. Cantor <dgc@CS.UCLA.EDU>
In Telecom, Volume 7, Issue 33 John Levine states
BellSouth's operating companies South Central Bell and Southern
Bell are introducing a new service called RingMaster. It assigns
two or three numbers to the same phone line, and gives the
different numbers different rings.
This was available for years in General Telephone Country (GTE).
GTE supported up to 10 parties with distinctive rings (5 ringing
frequencies and ringing between either line and ground). You could
request several numbers on the same line and you had to pay the sum
total of the individual line costs (note that party line were
substantailly less expensive than single-party lines).
One common use, in a time when standards were different, was by an
unmarried couple living together. Each, to the outside world,
appeared to have his (her) own line. It avoided problems such as having
another telephone ring while talking to one's parents, etc.
dgc
David G. Cantor
dgc@math.ucla.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 87 02:52:06 PDT
From: hoptoad.UUCP!gnu@cgl.ucsf.edu (John Gilmore)
To: telecom@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: AT&T, Baby Bells getting into data networks
I picked up these messages from the Telenet PC Pursuit bulletin board
system (type "C PURSUIT" to Telenet) and thought Telecom readers
would be interested.
I found the proposal for a separate data network particularly wierd,
since it looks like you would just attach modems to it anyway.
Presumably they would figure what kind of modem you had, decode the tones,
and ship the data digitally (like Telenet does now). I don't see why
this can't be done transparently using normal telephone lines and
numbers, e.g. if during the call, they notice that recognizable modem
tones are going down the line, and there is a local modem free on both
ends, they could just stop sending 64KB/sec and start sending 1200B/sec
or 2400B/sec or 9600B/sec. They might be able to do this right at the
beginning of a call, by looking for echo-suppressor tones.
Also, doesn't ISDN presume anybody, data or voice, can call anybody
else, data or voice? I sure hope so...
John
Msg # 2474 Dated 08-29-87 01:16:42
From: PATRICK TOWNSON
To: ALL
Re: BELL TELCOS GOING ONLINE!
Well, we knew it had to happen someday....Ameritech (the parent
company for Illinois Bell, Michigan Bell, Indiana Bell and others)
announced this past week that it will enter the up to now forbidden
area of on-line computer information and network services. This is
the first time a Bell Operating Company has said definitly it will
offer "enhanced information services".
Ameritech has paid five million dollars for a fifteen percent interest
in <Inet of America>, whose majority owners are Bell Canada and
suprise!! ....GTE/Telenet. .......
Permission to aquire an interest in Inet of America was granted by the
Justice Department last month, and Ameritech will begin work on the
new venture as soon as Judge Harold Greene gives his okay. Judge Greene
was the person who presided over the AT&T divestiture case. Approval
is expected, and will take the form of a full lifting of the
restriction against the various Baby Bells from entering this line.
<Inet of America> will offer EMAIL and other network services, including
interconnection arrangements with various information data bases.
Bell Canada has offered a similar service since 1985, and of course
Telenet has offered network services for a few years now. What
interested me the most was seeing that Telenet and Ameritech will
be in this together.
This message was prepared from the various press releases and
newspapers reports on the subject appearing this past week. I
specifically saw a <virtually identical> report in the Chicago Sun-
Times on Thursday 8/27, and the Wall Street Journal the same day.
It then appeared in a couple of telephony industry trade journals
this weekend.
Is Telenet taking the old standard approach, "if you can't beat
them, then join them"..???? I am sure it is far too early to
say where this effects us as Pursuiters, since the newspaper
accounts went on to say that the Ameritech/Bell Canada/Telenet
deal would not be implemented for a couple of years....but seeing
this article after weeks of reading about the dismal future of
enhanced services when the new fees go into effect next year does
give one reason to pause and reflect.
Any Telenet execs out there wish to comment?
Msg # 2698 Dated 09-03-87 21:15:26
From: PATRICK TOWNSON
To: ALL
Re: COMPUTER PHONE NETWORK
I mentioned earlier that Ameritech (Illinois Bell, Michigan Bell,
Indiana Bell, others) planned to join forces soon with Telenet and
Bell Canada in a new national computer public network. While the
details are by no means firm, here is speculation by a couple of Bell
insiders -- people in senior management who tend to go out to lunch
frequently with FCC Commissioners and staff members.
First, a little background: For many years, AT&T operated a service
called TWX, meaning <T>ype<W>riter E<X>change. It was in direct
competion to Western Union Telex. TWX operated just like regular voice
phones as far as dialing and network protocol. TWX had its own "area
codes" of 410-510-610-710-810-910. You could not and still cannot
access these "TWX area codes" from a regular phone. Neither can TWX
machines make calls to the area codes used by voice phones. Other than
the inability to jump between the voice network and the data network,
everything else about TWX functioned as we know it today -- for
example, dialing 610-555-1212 from a TWX machine gets Directory
Assistance -- numbers of other TWX machines -- in that "area code",
which in fact happens to be for Canada. An operator responds by
typing manually at a TWX machine and looks up the number, etc. Pulling
Zero gets a TWX operator who will assist in completing calls,handling
collect and third number billings, etc.
About twenty years ago, Western Union sued the Bell System and forced
them to give up the TWX business, by selling it (naturally) to Western
Union, which still runs the service today, but under the name "Telex
II". Even though owned by Western Union, the network switching
equipment for TWX/Telex II is still scattered in Bell central offices
and AT&T Long Lines facilities, and Bell maintains the circuits.
Now what does this <possibly> have to do with computer and modem
users? Well, the FCC is currently looking with some interest at an
informal proposal by AT&T to MOVE ALL COMPUTER/DATA TRANSMISSIONS to
their own little "semi-network", with their own area code and
prefixes, etc. So the, uh, speculation goes, folks with modems would
be required to have at least TWO phone lines on their premises --
unless they planned to not have a voice line -- and the second line
would be <dedicated> to the data traffic. The dedicated line for
the computer would have a "funny looking" area code (that is, not
the one used in your area for voice). Otherwise it would be just
a normal ten digit phone number. Every geographic area would have
one or more prefixes assigned to it. (The prefix is the first three
digits of your phone number).
Long distance calls over the system would run about $7-8 per hour,
as they do now, using the Reach Out Plans as the guidelines. Local
calls on the same prefix would be around five cents a minute, again
as they are now in communities with "user sensitive billing". There
might or might not be some "local free calling zone". There would
be a monthly access charge of course, just as you pay now for your
voice line. Calls on this network could not jump over to the voice
network or vice versa. In other words, an attempt to dial an area
code and number from the data line would be intercepted, and the
same would happen in reverse.
The Knowledgeable Sources who talk about these things at lunch
with their friends from the Commission seem to think the so-called
area code will be "300" or "400", or both. Directory Assistance
will be available to folks who choose to have listed numbers for
their computer (300-555-1212). International access will be handled
via "011", just as it is now on voice. Dialing zero, or possibly
some three digit access code will connect with an operator's position,
for handling collect calls, etc. Some people seem to think AT&T will
have it all implemented possibly as early as 1989...about the time
that Ameritech/Bell Canada/Telenet have their system ready to go.
Of course this is all just talk....just a figment of someone's
imagination at AT&T Long Lines, right? Of course.
Msg # 2882 Dated 09-12-87 01:17:01
From: PATRICK TOWNSON
To: ALL
Re: BELLS NOW IN THE BUSINESS
The Friday papers announced the Thursday ruling by Judge Harold Greene
regarding the proposals by the various regional Bell holding companies
wanting to handle data traffic.
They got the OK to create and maintain a data network; but they may NOT
create the actual data. That is, no BBS's, no data banks or other
information services, etc....just handle the traffic; a lot like PCP
does now, less this bulletin board.
They still cannot go into long distance service, however they will no
longer need a waiver to enter non-telephone related enterprises. The
group which pushed hardest for the okay to handle data traffic was
the consortium formed by GTE/Telenet, Ameritech and Bell Canada. These
three organizations are now free to pursue in ernest their plans for
ITNET, the name of the new data network being formed.
Basically, Bell went away angry at not being allowed into the long
distance market; some observors have noted however they were very
pleased to get the go-ahead for handling data traffic.
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
*********************