Telecom-REQUEST@MIT-XX.ARPA (Moderator) (09/08/85)
TELECOM Digest Sunday, September 8, 1985 12:49PM
Volume 5, Issue 34
Today's Topics:
Phone Systems for SMALL Businesses
X.PC protocol description available
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri 6 Sep 85 12:20:23-EDT
From: Paul R. Johnson <PRJohnson@MIT-XX.ARPA>
Subject: Phone Systems for SMALL Businesses
My wife works for a small stained-glass studio that wants to
improve their telephone service. She has been asked to look
into the possibilities and has ask me to help. I have a couple
questions for all you telephonic wizards.
First the questions, then the data:
1) What features should they be looking for and how should they
evaluate competitive systems?
2) Why is there such a WIDE range in costs for what seem to be
equivalent systems?
The studio consists of two locations in a single building. The
locations are separated by about 100 feet and share a common
basement, so stringing wires is straightforward.
What they want is two lines and four phones. They want to be
able to answer and call out on either line from any phone. The
need to be able to transfer calls from one phone to another, and
being able to signal between phones (while a call is on hold)
would be useful, but not mandatory (they can continue to use
their current intercom for that).
Now, Radio Shack sells this 2-line controller phone with hold
buttons for about $70. So Radio Shack cost is about 4 * $70 =
$280, plus some cost for stringing wires. Lets call it $300.
I called AT&T Small Business Connection and got a quote from
them for a system to handle the studio. Their quote (with
installation included) for a Merlin system: $2499! What
accounts for the > 800% difference? I realise that the Merlin
hardware may be better built and more reliable and may include a
few extra features (intercom?), but 8 is a big multiplier.
What am I missing? Should I be following some other leads?
Thanks all for any help.
---Paul Johnson
------------------------------
From: <hplabs!pesnta!peora!jer@Berkeley>
Date: Friday, 6 Sep 1985 08:41-EDT
To: telecom@mit-xx.arpa
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #32
In-reply-to: USENET article <8509050245.AA08106@UCB-VAX.ARPA>
> I think that the entire electromagnetic spectrum belongs to the people,
> just like the air we breathe.
This argument, like many based on "rights", doesn't make much sense.
According to this line of reasoning, the government should not prohibit me
from listening in on your personal conversations, because they are
transmitted via sound waves, which are vibrations of "the air we breathe,"
which you have argued is free to everyone.
Any restrictions on communication should involve the nature of the inform-
ation being transferred, not the medium by which that is done.
This whole debate is very strange, though. Back when I was young, and an
electronics hobbyist, I can remember a very similar argument over whether
or not it should be illegal to build "SCA Adapters"; SCA was a sort of pun,
you see, standing both for Subsidiary Carrier Authorization, and Secrecy of
Communications Act. In those days, it was rumored, there was a Secrecy of
Communications Act which limited listening to transmissions that weren't on
the allocated commercial or amateur frequencies. And in those days, the
Subsidiary Carrier transmissions had just begun to be used widely, and a
lot of people had built home-made devices to listen in on them, and someone
wanted to outlaw it because other people had to pay to receive the
transmissions, and it "wasn't fair". Sound familiar?
Judging from recent comments in here, though, it must have all been fiction,
or else it has been recently repealed. Does anybody remember the old
arguments for and against the "SCA Adapters"? Was the related Secrecy
of Communications Act just fiction?
--
Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 5 September 1985 15:37-MDT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!hamilton@Ucb-Vax.ARPA
Subject: X.PC protocol description available
just saw in Computerworld's "On Communications" that Hayes has adopted
X.PC over MNP...
the outfit i work for runs (in effect) a timesharing service with
users all over the country (plus a few overseas, too), who get a
variety of phone service quality problems. we experimented a little
with Microcom modems as a cure for line noise. however, we've got a
substantial investment in modems already (30+ dialins, i think, plus
100's of users' equipment). i wanted to have a look at the MNP
protocol to consider implementing it in software on our host(s) and
possibly on PC's at the user end. Microcom's insistence on cash up
front before even a peek damped that idea.
then Tymnet came along... after 1 phone call* i got a PC disk with an
X.PC driver and an application (source) using it, plus a package of
protocol docs and stuff. a 2nd phone call elicited 2 more disks with
the sources for the driver.
i haven't decided yet if X.PC is the answer to our problems, but i
know i like dealing with the Tymnet people a lot more than Microcom.
wayne ({decvax,ucbvax}!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!)hamilton
* sorry, i don't have the phone number handy. also, i hear that
they've had so much response that they will probably have to change
their distribution methods.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 85 18:13:16 pdt
From: psivax!woof (Hal Schloss)
Pacesetter Systems has recently discovered a need to communicate with another
computer located in Europe. (No we are not going to be running UUCP between
them :-) .) We would like to operate at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud for perhaps
an hour a day. On the other hand it might be for as little as five minutes a
day. I am soliciting suggestions as to alternatives to calling via AT&T
(or any other normal long-distance service.) So if you have ANY ideas about
what to do please send me E-mail at one of the addresses below.
Hal Schloss
(from the Software Lounge at) Pacesetter Systems Inc.
{sdcrdcf|ttdica|quad1|scgvaxd|nrcvax|bellcore|logico|rdlvax|ihnp4}!psivax!woof
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!woof@rand-unix.arpa
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
*********************