TELECOM@Usc-Eclb (09/13/82)
TELECOM AM Digest Monday, 13 September 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 116
Today's Topics:
V & H Coordinate Database Not Up To Date
Desirable Features For Residence Line - Camp On Hold & Busy Override
Supervisory Information Not Provided To Subscribers
French Directory Assistance Article In TIME
Bogus Installation Charges - Step Pulse Converters
MCCS In California - GTE EAX 3-Way Calling Tarriff?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 10 Sep 82 8:09:09-EDT (Fri)
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL>
cc: cmoore at BRL, rsx-dev at Dec-Marlboro
Subject: deleted prefixes?
1981 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton (Pa.) call-guide and a 1976 prefix
list for 201 area in NJ clearly list 201-993 Warren Glen, NJ.
However, it's missing from V&H tape, and when I look thru the Pa.
directory mentioned above, I find an entry for "Milford- Warren Glen"
and the only prefix I find there is 201-995 Milford.
202-381, which I located on an old phone bill of mine, no longer
exists (Washington, DC). 202-359 in Va. suburbs showed up in Jan.
1981 Northern Va. directory, but it does not exist.
------------------------------
Date: 10 Sep 1982 0840-EDT
From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO>
To: cmoore at BRL
Subject: Re: deleted prefixes?
Are you really surprised by the inability of the phone company to
supply correct information? Over a year after the country code for
Taiwan was changed from 86 to 886 (86 belongs to the People's Republic
of China -- I wonder if CCITT even recognizes 886 as a "standard"
code), many newly published phone books and an ONLINE "HELP" service
(with CRTs) over payphones in the Atlanta airport (near the
international departure area) still show it as 86.
The problem is simply that old information keeps getting published.
In a big company, it's difficult to get changes to every person
responsible for a page of a directory.
------------------------------
Date: 10 Sep 1982 0829-PDT
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-8
Subject: Desirable phone feature
From: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin)
For years, I have wanted to have a couple features associated with my
own phone related to busy situations, which would be independent of
any services the other phone in the circuit might have. I fear,
though, that they are impossible to implement in the telco world as it
is designed today. Let me describe what I want; if anybody knows a
way the desired result can be achieved, or the actual reasons why it
is technically impossible, info would be appreciated.
1. Break-in on busy on my own phone. When I call home, and my wife is
on the line (or vice versa), I want to be able to enter a code number
while the busy signal is sounding (I'll accept having to enter this
from a Touch-tone phone only) which will cause my call to be connected
to the call in progress in a three-way connection. After I talk, and
I hang up, the previous call continues uninterrupted. If one of the
other parties hangs up, and I don't, I am still connected to the
remaining party.
Note that I DON'T want "Call Waiting"; I don't care about calls from
anybody else, only calls from myself (or anyone I give the code number
to) would have any effect on the call in progress. Essentially, I
resent being "busied-out" from the phone I am paying for, and I want
the capability to override anybody using it.
2. Camp-on on busy on any phone number I call. When I call a number
that is busy, I don't want to hangup and redial, even if I had an
electronic phone with last-number-redial. I want to just hold on and
have the system continully poll that called line until it is no longer
busy and then ring it for me. I would hear the busy signal and then a
ring at my end. If I hang up, it stops trying; if I continue
off-hook, it will keep trying forever.
Both these features make life easier for me; since I'm paying for the
phone, I feel entitled. Most of the services now sold seem to be
oriented toward helping other people call me, which I don't
particularily want. (Sometimes I feel I want a dial-out-only
phone...)
I can see that these require "busy" be treated differently than it is
now; now, I believe that your call to a busy line gets routed to a
local source of busy signals, and your connection is only that far,
after the circuits detect that the destination is in use. This would
require a complete and open connection to the local office of the
called number.
Comments?
Will Martin
------------------------------
From: jheinrich at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V2 #115
cc: jheinrich.pa at PARC-MAXC
What is the exact answering supervision information which Ma Bell does
not supply to the "alternate" common carriers such as SPRINT? Why do
they have to go through the ruse of a timeout routine when deciding
the phone has been answered? Obviously this is information they do
not make available to their users--until the user has been burnt.
Joe
JHeinrich at PARC-MAXC
------------------------------
Date: 10 Sep 1982 1213-MDT
From: Walt <Haas at UTAH-20>
Subject: French information terminals
The French experiment with home terminals for information is described
in detail on page 65 of the 13 September issue of TIME magazine.
Apparently they have an algorithm for identifying homynyms of subscriber
names, so you don't have to spell the name exactly right.
------------------------------
Date: 6 Sep 82 14:55:25-PST (Mon)
From: Stephen Willson <willson.uci@Udel-Relay>
Subject: bogus installation costs
Re: Cost of switching to touch-tone service.
Here in Costa Mesa, California, and the nearby cities (Irvine, Newport
Beach, Tustin, ...) they have the following deal: If you don't get any
fancy ESS services (call forwarding, speed calling, call waiting) then
you get bogus touch tone service where everytime you hit a key on the
touch-tone pad it dials (click click click click) the digit you just
pressed. I didn't know about this when I first got my phone service
put in, and I didn't want any special services, so I got the bogus
touch-tone service.
After suffering with this for a while, I decided I wanted the real
thing, so I called the business office to complain. They told me that
I could get the real thing, but that there was a charge of about
$50.00 to have them switch me, plus I had to get a new phone number.
Fortunately, the nice woman at the business office told me that if I
wanted 8 number speed calling, it would cost me about $15.00 (or so, I
forget) to get that service, but, since I didn't have ESS they would
get me a new ESS phone number anyway! So I got speed dialing (at
about $2.00 extra/month) and ESS service.
I haven't tried undoing the speed calling service yet... I don't want
another phone number!
Steve Willson
U.C. Irvine
------------------------------
Date: 11 Sep 1982 00:57:42-PDT
From: Cory.bloom@Berkeley
Subject: MCCS in California
I have found MCCS in Coalinga, CA. Coalinga is a small town on I5
about 150-200 miles north of Los Angeles. It probably has been
installed other places, but I haven't tried using a credit card very
much. Does anyone know of any other areas in California with MCCS?
Jim Bloom
Cory.bloom@BERKELEY
------------------------------
Date: Thu Sep 9 1982 19:07:52 PDT
From: lauren (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: MCCS and other goodies
Reply-To: vortex!lauren@lbl-unix
Naw! No MCCS around here! Seriously, I have found no areas in
Southern California where MCCS is operational. This follows the
typical pattern, however. California (or rather, PacTel) can
generally be depended upon to be among the last to install "radically"
new features on any sort of widespread basis. Part of this is a
result of Pacific's financial situation (but, hey, I'm a subscriber
too, and I want to keep my phone bills from going sky high), and part
is from other causes.
Actually, it's sort of amusing. Los Angeles was about the last major
metro area to get Automatic Intercept (it went into widespread use
here only comparatively recently), and most of the #5 X-bar offices
still have no IDDD access. This is very unfortunate, since most of
the operating #5's in L.A. will not be converted to ESS until late in
the decade (if then) and PacTel has little interest in making IDDD
work before then. I suspect that they will finally get around to it
within the next couple of years, but these days they've been spending
most of their time on other matters. For example, there are still a
considerable number of step offices around here in PacTel -- they are
working to have these all converted to ESS within the next year or
two. (On the other hand, my crufty old General Telephone FX step
lines have had IDDD access for some time -- one of the few situations
where a step line has more features than crossbar!)
By the way, does anyone know why General Telephone of California has
no tariff for EAX 3-way calling for residences?
--Lauren--
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
**********************
-------