telecom@ucbvax.ARPA (07/03/85)
From: Moderator <Telecom-REQUEST@MIT-XX.ARPA>
TELECOM Digest Tuesday, July 2, 1985 5:17PM
Volume 5, Issue 1
Today's Topics:
(Truly) Integrated Telephone/Clock Radio
5000km Cordless Phone!
Re: equal access confusion TELECOM V4 #206
Equal access miscellanea
Standard representation for international telephone numbers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 1 Jul 85 08:15:07 PDT (Monday)
Subject: (Truly) Integrated Telephone/Clock Radio
From: Schwartz.osbunorth@Xerox.ARPA
Friends,
I am looking for an integrated clock radio/telephone. Most combination
clock radio/telephones on the market are NOT integrated. They consist
of a telephone which sits in a cradle on top of the clock radio. The
only integration is that when you lift the telephone, the radio is
muted.
My integration requirements include AT LEAST the ability to set the
alarm time via a keypad, which I expect would be the same keypad used to
dial the phone.
If you have seen such a unit, please advise.
Thanx, Victor Schwartz
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 85 16:58:39 EDT
From: Joe Pistritto <jcp@BRL.ARPA>
Subject: 5000km Cordless Phone!
While on a recent trip overseas, I passed thru Heathrow Airport
in London, and picked up a copy of an inflight magazine for a middle
eastern airline (I think it was Saudia, but I'm not sure). Anyway, there
was an ad for the 'electronic briefcase', with a comparitively normal
briefcase pictured, along with a number of electronic accessories, like
a bug finder, calculator, and a '5000Km range cordless phone', that
allegedly could be used as a car phone as well. What is this? The
picture looked something like a regular cordless, but how do they get
away with claiming a 5000km range?
-JCP
------------------------------
Date: 1 Jul 1985 15:56-EST
From: ihnp4!mcb@Berkeley (Mark C Baker @ AT&T Network Systems)
Subject: Re: equal access confusion TELECOM V4 #206
What I suspect is Rick (my equal access carrier is limbo)
Kovalcik's problem is that the Central Office software
wants to route your calls via Sprint's trunks. However,
if your office is a recent convert to equal access, Sprint
might not have any/enough trunk curcuits connected to
your Central Office yet, hence the fast busy tone.
When my home phone's office (312-983) cutover to equal
access last May, I tried making calls on various carriers.
Sprint (10777+) always returned fast busy. Calls made
last week over Sprint seemed to want to complete. I
would guess that Sprint's trunk curcuits were put into
service after the software.
-- Mark (my equal access carrier is AT&T) Baker
ihnp4!ihlpm!mcb
------------------------------
Date: 02-Jul-1985 1522
From: covert%castor.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John Covert)
Subject: Equal access miscellanea
Calls to your primary carrier (via 1+) are processed exactly the same as
if you had dialed the 10xxx code for that carrier -- the quality should be
the same whether you select a carrier as your primary carrier or dial 10xxx.
This is not the same as saying that the quality of carrier "x" will be the
same as the quality of carrier "y".
Each carrier has to run traffic studies to determine how many trunks to
install in each end-office (just as AT&T has always done -- this is equal
access in action). Right now, here in Nashua, I just dialed 10777 and am
listening to a CO generated recording: "We're sorry, all long distance
carrier circuits are busy now; will you please try your call again later."
Sprint obviously is running less than P01 service here, since I can get
that recording with only a few attempts at this time of day.
Someone said he would like to be able to get "none-of-the-above" -- you
sort of can; it's called "no-pick" -- and seems to be the status that
someone else who can currently only call 800 numbers is in right now.
However, if someone dials 10xxx and puts a call through, the charges will
still show up on your bill if the carrier chosen either has a billing
agreement with your local operating company or does their own billing.
/john
------------------------------
Date: 02-Jul-1985 1551
From: covert%castor.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John Covert)
Subject: Standard representation for international telephone numbers
There is an international standard, intended to be used on letterhead and on
business cards:
It is:
Tel: National Basingstoke (0256) 56101 (an extension, if any, is mentioned
---------------------------------- after the number.)
International +44 256 56101
It's obviously too verbose for telephone directories, but what do you expect
from the CCITT?
What is important is that in the International Number, the number is prefixed
with the plus sign, which indicates that the caller should first dial the
national code used to prefix international calls. Then there are NO OTHER
punctuation marks other than spaces, because certain bits of punctuation
have national meaning.
The format of the National number is determined nationally. In the U.K. it's
important to give the name of the exchange, so that callers can first check
their local codes list before using the area code. (Yes, in the U.K. you don't
necessarily dial "0256" to call Basingstoke from points nearby, you might dial
"96" or some other code.)
In other countries the name of the exchange is usually not specified. Those
exchanges with letters still remaining in the U.S. (they're almost all gone)
would be listed as follows:
Tel: National (311) KLondike 5-2368
-------------------------------
International +1 311 555 2368
DEC uses an internal private format for telephone numbers, e.g. [44]-(256)-56101
which places the country code in square brackets and the city or area code
(without local dialing prefixes) in parentheses. This is only slightly more
informative than the CCITT standard, above, in that it makes it clear what part
is the country code, what part the city or area code, and what part is the local
number. But if you're inside the country in question, you have to know what to
dial in front of the city/area code -- and since most countries (except France)
always show the "0" or whatever in the national number, our internal format is
confusing to those not initiated into the mysteries of telephony.
/john
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
*********************