telecom@ucbvax.ARPA (04/19/85)
From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>
TELECOM Digest Fri, 19 Apr 85 0:52:23 EST Volume 4 : Issue 181
Today's Topics:
[Carl Moore (VLD: Re: answer to NEW YORK, NY]
Re: answer to NEW YORK, NY
Delayed call forwarding revisited.
Re: Modem calls using NON-ATT carriers.
800 numbers
Equal Access and Data Communications
Re: 800-xxx-xxxx (except in sssss)
Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #180
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 85 16:01:32 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@Brl-Vld.ARPA>
To: telecom@Brl-Vld.ARPA
Subject: [Carl Moore (VLD: Re: answer to NEW YORK, NY]
----- Forwarded message # 1:
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 85 7:41:24 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL-VLD>
To: Todd Cooper <todd%bostonu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
cc: cmoore@brl-vld
Subject: Re: answer to NEW YORK, NY
Even before the 212/718 split, "NEW YORK, NY" on a phone bill
referred to Manhattan. (Brooklyn is "BKLYN NYC, NY".)
----- End of forwarded messages
------------------------------
Date: Wed 17 Apr 85 15:49:20-PST
From: Ole Jorgen Jacobsen <OLE@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: Delayed call forwarding revisited.
To: Telecom@BBNCCA.ARPA
Well, finally Pac Bell gave me a straight and plausible answer to why
you cannot have delayed call forwarding in conjunction with direct
call forwarding on the "rollover" line as I wanted. If the rollover
(2nd) line is forwarded to a line *outside* your CO, you could end up
getting what they term an "invalid sequence" e.g. 3 rings followed by
busy if the destination number is busy. This is not "allowed" and
hence the ESS decides not to rollover if the second line is forwarded
out of its own CO. (It will work as expected if the 3rd number is on
the same ESS). Too bad, it would have been such a wonderful feature
without this restriction.
<OLE>
-------
------------------------------
Date: 17 Apr 1985 23:46-PST
Subject: Re: Modem calls using NON-ATT carriers.
From: JOHN@SRI-CSL
To: mike@LOGICON
Cc: telecom@BBNCCA, john@SRI-CSL
I have experienced something similar to the problem you described (but
with some differences). My "modem disconnect" problem occurred only
at 1200 bps (no problem at 300 bps). The problem also occurred only
when I called from my home (in Pacific Bell territory) to the computer
(in General Tel territory) thru a tandem line (about 15 miles distance).
[No problems experienced when calling the computer from a local terminal.]
After alot of head scratching, I determined that the answering modem
(on the computer) generated considerable "splatter" in the 2600 Hz
region. This splatter caused the Pac Bell equipment to think that
the call (coming from the GTE CO) had been terminated. So the Pac
Bell equipment responded by terminating the call.
After replacing the answering modem with another, the problem
disappeared.
I don't know if your non-ATT carrier (or the other equipment in the
signal path) uses 2600 Hz for signalling. But this is a possible
explanation for the 1200 bps problem. (Don't know about the 300 bps
problem though.)
John McLean
------------------------------
Date: Thu 18 Apr 85 01:40:01-PST
From: David Roode <ROODE@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: 800 numbers
To: Telecom@BBNCCA.ARPA
Here at the DDN Network Information Center, we have an 800 number
[(800)235-3155], so I have learned a few things about them. They are
implemented as special routes on a computer somewhere. Each line used
a part of an 800 number service has a (dialable) number in the area
code where the service is located. These lines are in a hunt group
for each service. Although you can dial the non-800 equivalent for a
service, you cannot make outgoing calls on the 800 lines. An 800
number can be a network of different services, in which case the
service you reach when you dial the number can depend on your
location, and also on the time of day, customer-accessible
special-case programming, etc.
The base cost of an 800 number is roughly $60 per line per month.
Usage is billed at normal AT&T WATS rates, with a volume discount
based on the number of hours per month. There is an extra charge of
$300 to have a single number which is accessible for both Intrastate
and Interstate use. So, there is a cost to having the same number,
even when both Intrastate and Interstate access is purchased.
-------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17-Apr-85 20:02:11 PST
From: vortex!lauren@rand-unix (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Equal Access and Data Communications
To: TELECOM@MC.ARPA
The following was posted to Usenet in response to a query
regarding non-AT&T carriers and automated data calls...
---
I've found extreme variability among non-AT&T carriers when it comes
to data call testing. Most of them can handle 300 bps, but starting
at 1200 things start to get risky. Some routes work all the time with
some carriers, some routes only 1 call out of 4 or 5, some routes
not at all. Also, some brands of modems/carriers don't mix well
at all (one example: Sprint and the D.C. Hayes Smartmodem).
However, general issues of quality aside, there is one REALLY good
reason to generally avoid the non-AT&T carriers for automated
data traffic (like UUCP). As far as I know, only AT&T provides
called party answering supervision on all calls. Some of the other
carriers *may* provide it on calls to *some* cities--some don't support
it at all. It is almost impossible to get these firms
to admit what their status is on this point, since they don't really
like to admit how their charging is done. But in general the
non-AT&T carriers still operate on the "fixed timeout" basis for
charging. That is, if a call is held for a fixed length of time
(usually about 30 seconds) the charging starts. Period. This
could cause massive problems with systems that use autodialers and
have to timeout through busy signals, long call setup sequences,
and similar problems. Very substantial amounts of billed (but never
answered) calls could result. This applies both to completely
separate networks and to WATS resellers.
The alternate carriers CAN get called party supervision if they
want it. In fact, they pretty much HAVE to get it when they
go equal access in a city. Note though, that this means that the
availability of the supervision info is based on where you are
calling TO, NOT where you are calling from. Even worse, it appears
that there has been no quick action on the part of the alternates
to make USE of the supervision data (that is, to provide the means for
passing the information back to a central billing point) even
when it IS available in a destination city. So the information is
being ignored by these carriers in most cases, even when it exists.
Draw your own conclusions about what this means when it comes
to using alternate carriers for automated modem calls....
--Lauren--
P.S.
I wonder how the subscribers in equal access cities who get
randomly assigned to non-AT&T carriers will react when they
suddenly find that collect/third party/etc. calls no longer
work as they expected. Or how about the first time they
call operator to get credit for a wrong number (or a connection
where they couldn't hear the other party, etc.) and are told
that they have been switched to some other Joe Random service
and the operator can't help them?
The billing irregularities of the alternate carriers may also
cause people a lot of nasty surprises. People are used to the
concept that they don't get charged for a call unless it is
answered. With the alternates, this just isn't usually true.
I wonder if anybody is going to warn people that they've been
switched to a carrier that just "guesses" about when to
start billing?
Fat chance.
--LW--
------------------------------
Date: 18 Apr 85 09:06:56 PST (Thursday)
Subject: Re: 800-xxx-xxxx (except in sssss)
From: Cottriel.OsbuSouth@Xerox.ARPA
To: Murray.PA@Xerox.ARPA
re: "...Why is it that many of the 800 numbers advertised have an
exception
for a whole state? I assume that it's a regulatory/billing
problem..."
Sort of a regulatory problem. It has to do with Interstate vs.
Intrastate tariffs. If it's Interstate, AT&T gets it - if it's
Intrastate, the local operating company gets it. The costs for the two,
vary significantly.
So, if a company wants to offer inbound WATS to ALL of it's customers,
it must put in two lines. One to handle calls from all other states,
and one to handle calls from within the state in which they are located.
Clear as mud?
later--
John
------------------------------
From: vax135!ariel!houti!ccw@Berkeley
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 85 12:07:21 est
To: ariel!vax135!houxm!ihnp4!ucbvax!telecom@Berkeley
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #180
At least in the old days, it was a regulatory problem. Also
I think that if you had an intrastate call billed to the
national number there was the possibility of having to
use the national network. I.E. if you dialed an in
state number it was cheaper (because it was provided by the
local telco) per call handeled. If the national number
was dialled then ATT long lines or whatever was involved.
There would also be the problem of local regulations,
which would differ from the national.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The opinions stated herein are often based on heresay,
and in any case are probibly no longer current.
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
******************************