telecom@ucbvax.ARPA (07/17/85)
From: Moderator <Telecom-REQUEST@MIT-XX.ARPA>
TELECOM Digest Tuesday, July 16, 1985 5:25PM
Volume 5, Issue 6
Today's Topics:
Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #4 (vadic 2400)
Equal Access foulup -- it's all in the plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 85 23:33:46 pdt
From: sdcsvax!jww@Berkeley (Joel West @ CACI) (ttyd0)
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #4 (vadic 2400)
> Date: Tue, 9 Jul 85 12:37:51 edt
> From: David M. Siegel <dms@mit-hermes>
> Subject: Vadic Maxwell 2400V modem
>
> I was wondering if anyone has had any experience with this product?
> For example, did any unexpected problems come up with its use.
>
> Thanks,
> -Dave
We currently have 4 "Maxwell Modem 2400V" by Racal-Vadic. One is used
in auto-answer for a UNIX mini, 2 are connected to DEC terminals, and
the last is being used by my Mac this very minute! :-)
They have worked reliably and reasonably for 3 months now. I vastly
prefer 2400 to 1200 baud. (I know, dial-up 1 mb/sec is "real soon
now" but any improvement is welcome) My only gripe is that so
few people have 2400's yet and so I can only call two computers
at 2400. Most of the time I use it at 1200.
I've not hooked it up to an ACU. It dials on the Hayes/Apple
protocol with MacTerminal just fine, and, as far as I can tell,
is "compatible" (my USR and 2400V disagree on whether "+++" means
attention or disconnect, however). I normally use the Vadic
dialing sequence by hand, because it's shorter. The 2400V seems
to do a reasonable job detecting busy signals.
Talking with astrovax!wls, it seems the 2400V is not strictly
dialcode compatible with the Hayes 2400, but both are supersets
of the Hayes 1200.
In conclusion, I would have no reservations about recommending the
modem to anyone who needs 2400 today. (In southern california,
try DJC, they seem to be the cheapest).
Joel West
CACI, Inc. - Federal (c/o Gould CSD)
{ucbvax!sdcsvax,ihnp4!bonnie}!gould9!joel
gould9!joel@NOSC.ARPA (also joel@NOSC)
------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 16 Jul 1985 11:14:23-PDT
From: goldstein%donjon.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Equal Access foulup -- it's all in the plan
I just had a very interesting conversation with a supervisor at New
England Telephone's "response center", which is the number you call
(800/555-5000) in order to select your Primary Carrier for Equal Access.
As readers probably know, the FCC ruled in May that the BOCs can no
longer default customers to AT&T Communications. If a user doesn't
select a long distance carrier, they become a prize in a lottery in
which tickets are allocated to long distance carriers in proportion
to the number of claimed voluntary customers. If a customer doesn't
actively presubscribe to one LD carrier, they get one "at random".
In order to make this work, the FCC, if I recall, said that the BOCs
have to send out ballots to all customers, allowing them to choose
a customer. If they don't reply, they get a letter telling them whom
they've been randomly assigned to, and they have time to change back
before it takes effect. The NET rep says that this process will begin
with Equal Access conversions beginning in October. If cutover is
before then (my exchange is set for July 27), then there's no ballot.
Under the pre-5/31 rule, customers all defaulted to AT&T. If you
wanted AT&T, you did nothing. If you wanted the Joe & Andy Long Distance
Telephone and Dishwasher Company, you sent them a card, or PHONED your
selection to NETelco.
What's screwing up now is that those exchanges cut over between now and
October get neither rule. They don't get ballots, and they don't default
to AT&T. They will _temporarily_ default to AT&T, but they will be
allocated _without balloting_ six months after conversion. Customers
who defaulted to AT&T _before 5/31 rules_ get ballots, though, with a
new presubscription choice term.
Think of the potential this system has! An unscrupulous reseller (never
heard of one, eh?) can PHONE IN as many spurious presubscription choices
for customers cutting over this summer, and they will take effect without
any written authorization from the customer! If a customer signs up for
more than one LD carrier, the last one received takes precedence. So
a carrier can (just before deadline) take a phone book and phone in
presub orders for hundreds of "desired" customers. Most people, of course,
are NOT going to send a letter of authorization to AT&T (or other selected
carrier) or wait on hold forever to give telco their choice! Most people
think this whole business is a crock and don't want to participate.
The FCC should really clarify this mess. Either you default to AT&T,
or you get a ballot. I wonder how many customers will have spurious
preselections made for them, too! What a mess.
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
*********************