telecom@ucbvax.ARPA (07/08/85)
From: Moderator <Telecom-REQUEST@MIT-XX.ARPA>
TELECOM Digest Monday, July 8, 1985 12:48AM
Volume 5, Issue 3
Today's Topics:
Re: Update on telephone harrassment case
The accelerator
Pointers to Microcom Modem & Vendor
Experience with Equal Access
Questions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 85 10:11:17 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Update on telephone harrassment case
Be cautious about letting people in to use the phone! Other sources
suggest that you offer to make the call yourself.
------------------------------
Date: Friday, 21 June 1985 17:22-MDT
From: decvax!decwrl!greipa!pesnta!pertec!peregrine!mike@Ucb-Vax.ARPA
Subject: The accelerator
For those of you that have dial up asynchrous modems, there is a
relatively unknown product available. It is called an accelerator.
It does three very useful things.
1. It huffman encodes all transmissions to increase transmission speed.
2. It does error checking and correction.
3. It does speed conversion.
It costs about $1000 dollars (you need one at each end). And is made
by a company named Telebyte. We have two of them and love them. It
makes remote demos possible. Not only can you go through pbx's, if
someone picks up the phone you don't get junk on the screen (if they
hang it up quick enough so that the modems don't drop carrier, you
will notice this only as a slowing down of transmission. By the way
I don't sell them but if I looked it up I might be able to find the
name of our local (Southern California) distributor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Wexler(trwrb!pertec!peregrine!mike) | Send all flames to:
15530 Rockfield, Building C | trwrb!pertec!peregrine!nobody
Irvine, Ca 92718 | They will then be given the
(714)855-3923 | consideration they are due.
------------------------------
Date: Monday, 24 June 1985 20:02-MDT
From: lindahl%Waltz%TI-CSL@CSNet-Relay.ARPA
Subject: Pointers to Microcom Modem & Vendor
> There's been some discussion here about the 300/1200/2400 baud
> modem offered by Microcom (Microcomm?) that implements the MNP
> (Microcom[m] Networking Protocol) inside the modems' firmware.
> I cannot seem to be able to get any pointers to the company nor
> to the modem model number. Can anyone help? Thanks!
The same modem is being OEMed by CODEX as their SX/2400 model. EXACT
same product (as far as I can tell).
Charlie Lindahl
Texas Instruments (CRL/CSL)
ARPA: lindahl%Waltz%TI-CSL@CSNet-Relay
UUCP: {convex!smu, texsun, ut-sally, rice} ! waltz ! lindahl
------------------------------
Date: Sun 7 Jul 85 16:54:12-CDT
From: CS.MIAMI-VICE@UT-A20.ARPA
Subject: Experience with Equal Access
Before Equal Access reached Austin, I had accounts with MCI &
SATELCO (a local San Antonio-based company) for long distance
service. MCI called me up and asked me if I would designate
MCI as my primary carrier. I said yes since MCI was going to
give me 1 hour free of night rate interstate calling just for
signing up. SATELCO sent me notices in the mail asking me to
sign and return to them a note saying that I want to designate
SATELCO as my primary carrier. I never did sign the one for
SATELCO. After Equal Access reached Austin, I found one month
too late that SATELCO had been made my primary carrier even
though I designated MCI. I called up Southwestern Bell Telephone
and they told me that MCI did submit a request to put me on
their system, but they also received one from SATELCO. What did
happen was that I had given one month's long distance calling
to SATELCO, when the business should have gone to MCI. I told
the Southwestern Bell agent to change my primary carrier from
SATELCO to MCI. She responded by telling me that I would have
to pay the $5 for the change. I had gotten the impression that
ALL changes during the first 6 months of Equal Access in an area
were free. Even the MCI representatives told me that. I have
been SCREWED: Hooked to SATELCO when I wanted MCI, Gave business
to SATELCO when it should have gone to MCI (along with the 1 free
hour), and now Southwestern Bell is going to charge me five bucks
to get MCI! Has the FCC been informed of these practices?
------------------------------
Date: Sun 7 Jul 85 21:05:21-EDT
From: RONNIE@MIT-EECS
Subject: Questions
I have a couple of questions. Excuse me if this has already been discussed
as I have not been following.
1. When I am on a phone with three-way calling and the third party was called
through an ATT calling card, it seems to be impossible to hang up on this
person before the person hangs up on me. If I call using the special tone
and I try to hang up, I hear two clicks, and it just stays there. This
is very annoying especially when I have called information. The operator
connects me with the computer, which voices me the number, and I can't
hang up! I am forced to wait while another directory assistance operator
comes on the line, who says, ``MAY I HELP YOU?'', to which I usually
respond, ``YES, PLEASE HANG UP THE PHONE.'' When I call from a rotory
or just decide to talk to the operator, giving him/her the calling card,
when I press the switch-hook, it ``flashes'' and the operator asks me if
``I AM THROUGH.'' Of course I respond with a yes, but if the other person
hasn't hung up, it still doesn't disconnect me! Is there some way around
this about which I don't know????!!!! I am in Syracuse, New York, but have
noticed this problem also in Miami, Florida.
2. I have a friend who is living in Washington (Seattle Area) for the summer.
He also has all of the custom calling features (except call-waiting). We
have noticed a couple of differences from what we are used to. Firstly,
when call-forwarding is established, if you pick up the phone, it will tell
you by giving three beep-tones. Secondly, the voice of the computer that
accepts your calling card is different, and it says something different.
If you press # after the other party hangs up, for example, it will
say, ``You may dial another CALL now.'' instead of NUMBER. Also the
emphisis seems to be on the word ANOTHER, as opposed to DIAL & CALL.
These modifications seem to be useful...are they documented anywhere, and
will they become a standard, and is there anything else we haven't
discovered.
Thanks for your time,
#Ron
RONNIE@MIT-MC.ARPA
RONNIE@MIT-EDDIE.ARPA
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
*********************