Telecom-Request%mit-mc@brl-bmd.UUCP (Telecom-Request@mit-mc) (02/20/84)
TELECOM Digest Monday, 20 Feb 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 24
Today's Topics:
Simultaneous Three-Way calling and Call Waiting
Acoustic Couplers and the CCITT
Mailgrams to Congress
statistical multiplexors
Telephones in Yugoslavia
N.E. Tel and the Acton false charging problem
news from the SW: another increase
news from the SW: but AT&T doesn't get their way (yet)
Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #22
[Due to some technical problems, some of the submissions sent to
TELECOM may have been lost. If you don't see your submission here,
please resend it to TELECOM@MIT-MC. Thanks. --JSol]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 13-Feb-1984 2356
From: (John Covert) <decwrl!rhea!castor!covert@Shasta>
Subject: Simultaneous Three-Way calling and Call Waiting
Subscribers in No. 1 and 1A ESS have long enjoyed the ability of using
Call Waiting at almost any time during a conversation.
Subscribers in No. 2 ESS and many other systems, most recently, No. 5
ESS, AT&Ts new wonder office, have been unable to make as good use of
call waiting, because any time a three-way conversation is in
progress, a significant amount of time for many heavy telephone users,
Call Waiting is disabled.
Rumor has it that AT&T is convinced this is correct. It drastically
reduces the usefullness of BOTH call waiting and three way calling.
This apparent mistake in the design of No. 5 ESS is accompanied by
some nasty bugs, including a frequent failure of Call Waiting to work
properly even when the design says it should. Often after releasing
one party of a three-way call, Call Waiting will not work for the
remainder of the (no longer three-way) call.
------------------------------
Date: 14-Feb-1984 1736
From: (John Covert) <decwrl!rhea!castor!covert@Shasta>
Subject: Acoustic Couplers and the CCITT
From time to time European friends ask why the U.S. doesn't comply
with all applicable CCITT recommendations. One reason is that we
usually develop technology rapidly here in the U.S. and want to apply
it, i.e., bring it to market to reap the profits from the technology
without waiting years for a CCITT approval cycle.
Another reason is that many of the recommendations are absolutely
absurd.
I just had occasion to read CCITT recommendation V.15, "Use of
Acoustic Coupling for Data Transmission."
I always thought the strange regulation that acoustic couplers could
only be used for "temporary connection of portable data transmission
equipment" was specific to Germany.
But those words are right in V.15, which recommends "that acoustic
coupling of data transmission equipment via telephone instruments to
the telephone transmission network should not be used for permanent
installations."
According to the CCITT, acoustic coupling should only be used "in
circumstances where it may not be possible to obtain convenient access
to the subscriber's line terminals."
This is certainly one recommendation that I'm glad we don't follow.
------------------------------
Date: Wednesday, 15 Feb 1984 08:14:17-PST
From: (Paul Dickson, 264-3035) <decwrl!rhea!pixel!dickson@Shasta>
Subject: Mailgrams to Congress
The other day I received a telegram from AT&T thanking me for agreeing
to let them send a mailgram to congress in my name. Funny, I don't
remember giving permission for this. The mailgram I allegedly sent
reads:
I oppose congressional legislation that will cost consumers a
10% long-distance rate reduction now and bring higher local
rates in the future. I support the plan for full competition
in the telephone industry as developed by the Federal
Communications Commission.
According to the telegram, the senate voted 44 to 40 on 26-Jan-1984 to
tabel the bill "that would have stifled free market competition". I
hope none of them were swayed by such a clumsy piece of flak.
Now, regardless of how I feel about the bill in question, I object to
AT&T using my name like this. I sure can't remember giving
permission. Was it on a stock proxy? (I still have 1 share)
------------------------------
Date: 15 Feb 1984 1407-PST
From: Richard M. King <KING@KESTREL>
Subject: statistical multiplexors
I'd like to buy one. Specifically, I want a box with some
number (approx. 12) RS232 connections on one end, and some other
number (say 4) on the other. I want to be able to plug 9600-baud
devices into the 12-end and be able to connect the four wires from the
other end to the similar plugs on a similar unit. The four wires
would run at 9600 baud. The effect would be the same as if I had 12
RS232 links.
Of course that's impossible because there isn't enough
capacity on the four lines. The boxes should have an option of at
least 4K bytes of buffering on each of the 12 lines, and should use
XON/XOFF to throttle the 12 devices.
Another desirable option is to be able to run on 3, 2 or 1
interbox links by setting switches. Degraded performance would be
acceptable in this case, of course.
Does anyone out there know of a company that makes this?
Sounds like it should be an off-the-shelf item.
Thanks in advance...
Dick
------------------------------
Date: Thu 16 Feb 84 20:13:05-EST
From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV@DEC-MARLBORO.ARPA>
Subject: Telephones in Yugoslavia
UUCP-Address: "{ucbvax,allegra,decvax}!decwrl!rhea!castor!covert"
I just received a call from a friend at the Olympic Games. Two
interesting notes of telephony:
They've had quite a bit of trouble with incoming calls. It seems that
their phone rings, but when they pick it up, there's nothing there.
The caller in the U.S. hears deadly silence (the whole time, never any
audible ring). The phone in Yugoslavia is then dead for twenty
minutes or so.
The Yugoslav PTT insists the problem must be in the U.S. Even though
the phone stays dead for 20 minutes.
In Yugoslavia, having a phone installed results in having a bugging
device installed. All the phones, when placed on-hook, still have the
transmitter active. Butting-in on any phone line picks up any
conversation in the vicinity of the phone.
------------------------------
Date: Thu 16 Feb 84 20:23:07-EST
From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV@DEC-MARLBORO.ARPA>
Subject: N.E. Tel and the Acton false charging problem
UUCP-Address: "{ucbvax,allegra,decvax}!decwrl!rhea!castor!covert"
For at least the past two years I have noticed a trunk into the Acton
C.O. from the Framingham toll machine which returns off-hook
supervision as soon as the number is sent to Acton (617 263/264).
This, of course, results in a charge for the call even if a busy
signal or ring-no-answer is reached.
I've reported this on a number of occasions, and at one point it was
actually identified to be a specific trunk. But the problem never
goes away for long.
I decided to let the local newspaper know about the problem, and a
rather long article appeared today.
The circumstances of the problem were accurately reported, but then a
N.E.Tel "community relations" person was quoted as saying that it was
an isolated incident which is not affecting the entire community. And
that the problem was not in Acton, but was in the point of origin,
since billing is done at the point of origin.
The problem is not isolated; I had someone run tests a few weeks ago.
Every third call was going off-hook as the call began to ring.
The community relations person, when I called to set her straight,
seems to have concluded that I must "have something against the
telephone company."
/john
------------------------------
Date: Fri 17 Feb 84 02:33:19-CST
From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
Subject: news from the SW: another increase
(AP-Feb-16-84) Austin American Statesman
Bell to increase monthly bills $2.75
====================================
Southwestern Bell Telephone (SWB) rates for residential
customers will increase $2.75 a month next Thursday, the
company announced Wednesday.
The rate increase, which can be put into effect without the
approval of the Texas Public Utility Commission (TPUC),
would total $280 million.
Without approval, Bell must file a bond with the utility
panel providing for a refund to customers, with interest,
on any amount above the final commission decision in the
rate case.
For Austin residential customers, the base cost of a
one-party line will increase from $9.05 to $11.80.
One-party business rates will increase $3.85 per month,
multi-line business systems wil pay a charge of $5.10 per
month, and directory assistance calls wil become more costly.
The new directory assistance plan, which would go into
effect in March, would reduce the monthly call allowance
from 10 to 3, and the charge for each call over the monthly
allowance would go up from 25 cents to 30 cents.
The February increase is an addition to an interim Bell
rate increase of $653 million, which is being paid only by
long distance carriers like AT&T, MCI and Sprint. That
increase ws approved by the PUC.
The rates announced Wednesday will be paid by all customers.
A commission hearing has ended on the record rate increase
request by Bell of $1.3 billion, but Bell vice president
Paul Roth said that the company could not wait on a decision.
"We find ourselves in a situation in which we must obtain
additional revenues from bonded rates, especially since SWB
is now a stand-alone company," Roth said.
He was referring to the Jan 1 court-ordered breakup of AT&T
which made Southwestern Bell a seperate company.
------------------------------
Date: Fri 17 Feb 84 02:34:13-CST
From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
Subject: news from the SW: but AT&T doesn't get their way (yet)
(AP-Feb-16-84) Austin American Statesman
$115 MILLION REQUEST BY AT&T IS REJECTED
========================================
The Public Utility Commission rejected a request Wednesday by
AT&T for an immediate $115.4 million increase in
long-distance rates within Texas.
The commission, however, instructed the staff to review the
emergency rate request when the hearing on the AT&T overall
revenue request for $301.4 million is completed. That
hearing is scheduled March 12.
Utility Commissioner Peggy Roson said she concurred in
refusing the emergency rate request, but also opposed
reviewing it at the completion of the full hearing.
Jim Boyle of the Office of Public Utility Counsel objected
to the AT&T request: "We're talking about interim relief
here. We're talking about a company that says, 'I'm
desperate. I've got to have more money,' and yet they want
an 8 percent increase for all their management."
Grace Casstevens, representing the Texas Municipal League,
said: "This is a real easy case because AT&T just made a
bunch of allegations that it just simply couldn't prove."
Ron LeMay of AT&T said, "Certainly, while we are
disappointed, the prospect of finally getting to have rates
to recover our costs earlier than the typical date, which
would occur sometime in June, has to be encouraging."
LeMay apparently was referring to the commission decision
to reconsider the emergency rate request at the end of the
March hearing.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 84 20:22:09 pst
From: sun!gnu@Berkeley (John Gilmore)
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #22
Re Marvin Sirbu's comments on gatewaying commercial message systems:
Certainly MCImail loses the connect charge if someone sends a message
on Telemail which is gatewayed to MCImail. They can make this up by
charging Telemail as the message comes in the gateway. Telemail would
presumably charge that back to the original sender. In many cases,
this would generate more revenue than the old policy, since a given
customer will be able to communicate with more people (and presumably
will do so).
Presumably they would allow messages to gateway "out" into the free
world (Usenet, etc), since the charges for sending have been paid. I
can also see how a service like the Source might well want to receive
netnews as a way to draw customers -- I bet a lot of paying customers
would end up spending connect time reading it. If that makes them
money, the small amount of inbound (usenet->paying customer) mail
might make it feasible to just let it in for free, since it completes
the connectivity.
The argument that "maybe some people who need it will get an account
on both systems" sounds like the old days when a town would have two
phone systems which would refuse to interconnect. The smart customers
will refuse to connect to either, and wait til someone offers a real
mail service.
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
*********************