Telecom-Request%usc-eclc@brl-bmd.UUCP (Telecom-Request@usc-eclc) (10/21/83)
TELECOM Digest Friday, 21 Oct 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 80
Today's Topics:
Telegrafverket
Re: MCI Mail dial-up
"Poor" Southwestern Bell getting closer to double basic phone cost
800 9xx-9999
RE Re Bell Breakup
Re: MCI Mail dial-up
new ringing signal
Re: MCI Mail dial-up
Tone and voice input and output
MCI Mail
Vadic 3400 protocol on MCIMAIL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 19 Oct 1983 1831-EDT
From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO>
Subject: Telegrafverket
Telegrafverket is definitely neither German nor Danish. The telephone
portion of the Swedish PTT is called Televerket; I suspect
Telegrafverket is Norwegian. I had heard that Norwegian dials were
different, but I had no confirmation.
Thanks/John
------------------------------
Date: 19 Oct 1983 1552-PDT
Subject: Re: MCI Mail dial-up
From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT@USC-ISIB.ARPA>
I called it with my VA3451 and it communicated just fine. In VA3400
format, I think. You musta gotten a bad connection.
<>IHM<>
------------------------------
Date: Thu 20 Oct 83 06:33:07-CDT
From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
Subject: "Poor" Southwestern Bell getting closer to double basic phone
Subject: cost
$910 MILLION INCREASE RECOMMENDED FOR BELL
-------------------------------------------- (from the Austin American
Statesman)
(AP) The staff for the Public Utility Commission recommended a rate
increase of nearly $910 million for Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
Monday. The telephone company had initially asked for an increase of
nearly twice that amount - $1.7 billion.
Southwestern Bell vice president Paul Roth called the staff proposal
"more realistic" than recommendations made by others involved in the
case, but said it still "falls short."
The company asked for the record rate increase in June, saying it
needed more money than ever because it must break away from its parent
firm, AT&T, and stand alone next year.
The staff recommendation will be considered by the commission after
hearings, which begin Monday and are expected to last at least eight
weeks. The hearing examiners will make their recommendations, and a
final decision in the case is not expected before March, said
commission representative Rick Hainline. (end of article)
--------------------- (begin of comment)
it seems more and more as if the break-up is being handled in
a way
more "in the best interest" of the phone company, rather than
the
public. Noone disputes seriously, that the break-up was
desired by
Bell in the first place, to be able to participate in the
lucrative
computer-related market, and get out of the "doomed"
investment of
lots of "lots of twisted pairs". I "gloomily" predict, that
cable-TVs
coax is going to make the "wire" obsolete, and that then the
public is
going to get stuck with buying out the "worthless" local
phone-line,
because "there was a promise of a continued reasonable profit"
made
to the investors who own the phone companies. (I hope that I
am wrong)
Anyway, it makes no sense to me that the minimal cost of gas,
water,
and electricity, all are less than for phone. Shouldn't all
that
automisation, computerisation , glass-fibers, digital
encoding, etc,
make phones cheaper rather than more expensive ? I'd expect
that with
more automization, costs for running the service should be
less, and
the increased cost of creating facilities and lines for new
customers
should NOT lead to an increase of service costs to all.
Anyway, I
wished we would only pay the phone company for providing the
service
and pay (and own) for the hardware ourselves, bundled into the
house
mortgage. still looking for a better and cheaper way ...
---Werner (@utexas-20.ARPA or @ut-ngp.UUCP)
------------------------------
Date: 20 Oct 1983 0755-EDT
From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO>
Subject: 800 9xx-9999
I don't expect 800 957-9999 to continue reaching WWV for very long
after the appropriate people at Bell realize that revenue is being
lost.
It looks like some hacker put in several pointers to various time and
weather numbers using the format 800 9xx-9999.
------------------------------
From: ittral!monti%ittvax@BRL-BMD.ARPA
Date: 19 Oct 83 03:26:35 EDT (Wed)
From: decvax!ittvax!ittral!monti@BRL-BMD.ARPA
Subject: RE Re Bell Breakup
This little note is to Brint Cooper (CTAB) abc@brl-bmd. Your comment
of: ... The instruments which purchase for rather inflated prices are
not nearly so durable and reliable as those made and severly tested by
Western Electric..... is not totally correct. There several companies
putting out telephone apparatus that are as well made as westerns
handware because several telephones that Bell Stores are selling and
are going to sell are made by other U.S. firms. The ITT telephones
are made and tested to the same standards as westerns' telephones and
the operating companies will be buying a lot of them come the first of
the year. And apparently the price is right as well. So I suggest
you do a little looking at the telephony industry before you make
"blanket" statements about quality and price. I do agree that some of
the Japanese and European telephones are not worth whatever they're
sold for. They're pure junk and I hope the public looks at a lot of
telephones and especially
--tests-- them before buying them because they will be upset expecting
a western quailty telephone for $19.95.
Jim Monti
ITT Telecom
Raleigh, NC
decvax!ittvax!ittral!
------------------------------
Date: 20 Oct 1983 0628-PDT
Subject: Re: MCI Mail dial-up
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
A 3451 is a triple modem; it handles Bell 212A, Bell 103, and Vadic
3400 type modes. The 3434 handles Vadic 3400 and (I think) Bell 103
modes only.
So yours was working as a 212A.
(I had tried this dial-up repeatedly before I called them and then
sent that message.)
Will Martin
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 83 12:02:39 EDT
From: cmoore@brl-vld
Subject: new ringing signal
The ringing signal on incoming calls to 302-731 (Newark, Del.)
recently changed (no insert yet in phone bill) to the ring I normally
associate with electronic exchanges. Does that mean that such
exchange has indeed gone electronic? (Is it true that some
non-electronic exchanges have IDDD?) Up to this point, by the way,
people on 731, 737, 738 who want call holding, etc., had to change (no
charge) to 366,368,453,454. When this happened, the old number was
given an intercept to last for 3 months or until the next directory
came out, whichever was later. (Newark has had both electronic &
nonelectronic together, and a change as mentioned just above was
possible for someone keeping the same address.)
------------------------------
Date: 20 Oct 1983 0952-PDT
Subject: Re: MCI Mail dial-up
From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT@USC-ISIB.ARPA>
I am not so sure it was operating as 212A. I can call the dial-up and
check, but from the time it took to accept carrier, I think it was a
3400 carrier. You will recall that the negotiation process uses
several delays to decide what it is talking to. Also, the connection
was relatively clean, not typical of 212A on longish halls. Even so,
it DID work at 1200 baud. If you still can't talk to it, perhaps you
are right about the 212A format, but it should work just fine at 300.
One other point was that the 1200 baud mode of operation expects 2
consequtive carriage return characters for auto- baud.
<>IHM<>
------------------------------
Date: 20 Oct 83 12:04:28 CDT (Thu)
From: jacobson@wisc-rsch (Fred M Jacobson)
Subject: Tone and voice input and output
I have a flyer from Computalker describing their CompuFone S-100
board. A summary:
Telephone Interface
* FCC Approved
* Initiate and Answer Phone Calls
* Trunk Status Detector
* Touch-Tone (R) Generator
* Touch-Tone (R) Decoder
Voice Digitizer
* Record Speech from telephone, MIKE IN, or LINE IN
* Speech Storage: hardware data compression to and from
RAM and disk
* Speech Output: reproduce speech and send to telephone
or LINE OUT
* Rates: 1.25, 2, 2.5, 3, or 4 Kbytes/sec
It costs $995 (plus $20 for software on CP/M 8" SD, more for other
formats). The manual (included with the board) alone costs $30. For
details:
Computalker
1730 21st Street
Santa Monica, CA 90404
(213) 828-6546
------------------------------
Date: 20 Oct 1983 1243-PDT
From: Jon Solomon <JSol@USC-ECLC>
Subject: MCI Mail
I called MCI mail on my '3434 and it indeed does not respond to VADIC
carrier. Only Bell 103 and Bell 212A.
I guess MCI could have established a policy that VADIC is dead, and
Bell is the way to go (I'm sure AT&T would be happy about said
decision). MIT-OZ used the reverse logic saying that if VADIC is dead,
most people will not have VADIC modems, hence they will use VADICs to
keep randoms off their dialups!
------------------------------
Date: Thu 20 Oct 83 13:48:24-PDT
From: David Roode <ROODE@SRI-NIC>
Subject: Vadic 3400 protocol on MCIMAIL
Location: EJ286 Phone: (415) 859-2774
The problem is that the modems to implement triple protocol are 2-3
times as expensive as the Bell 212A ones. If Vadic would cut the
price from $895 or so to $395 or so, then this difference would be
more manageable.
The best argument to use with MCI MAIL might be "Well, GTE Telemail
supports Vadic 3400 protocol." The problem is that things are
probably too far along to be changed.
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
*********************