Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (4.0/4.7) id AA10409; Fri, 2 Dec 88 00:17:12 EST Message-Id: <8812020517.AA10409@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Fri, 2 Dec 88 00:05:35 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #191 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Fri, 2 Dec 88 00:05:35 EST Volume 8 : Issue 191 Today's Topics: UUCP via Northern Telecom "LDU"? Lightbeams aren't FCC regulated Re: Inside House Wiring (and other lines) Operating Co's vs. Mobile telco's Re: Laser Beam as a ethernet backbone A Question About 900 Rates Long Distance carriers: ATT, MCI vs. Sprint Network Access Fee Up December 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To: comp-dcom-telecom@rutgers.edu From: tkevans@fallst.UUCP (Tim Evans) Subject: UUCP via Northern Telecom "LDU"? Date: 1 Dec 88 01:17:14 GMT Organization: Tim Evans, Fallston, MD Lines: 15 Northern Telecom has installed zillions of their Model NT4X25 "Low- Speed Data Units" (LDU) in my Federal agency. These use data-only lines for modem-less communications, with speeds up to 19.2. They're fine for interactive communications, but it'd be real nice to use them for UUCP. Is anyone using such devices for UUCP? If so, I'd like to hear from you. You might even have a dial.c or entries for /usr/lib/uucp/Dialers and/or Devices? Thanks -- UUCP: ...!{rutgers|ames|uunet}!mimsy!aplcen!wb3ffv!fallst!tkevans INTERNET: tkevans%fallst@wb3ffv.ampr.org OTHER: ...!attmail!fallst!tkevans Tim Evans 2201 Brookhaven Court, Fallston, MD 21047 (301) 965-3286 ------------------------------ From: goldstein%delni.DEC@decwrl.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388) Date: 1 Dec 88 09:48 To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Lightbeams aren't FCC regulated Rahul Dhesi, in V8I189, suggests that lightbeam transmitters and automobile headlights are subject to FCC regulation. This is not the case. Last time I looked, the FCC regs covered frequencies up to 300 GHz. Anything above that (where microwaves begin to approach infrared) is not considered a radio emission, and is not covered by the FCC. Hence you don't need a license for any kind of "optical" transmitter. I think the top frequency used to be a lot lower (30 GHz in the early '60s, perhaps) but nowadays, those upper microwaves are becoming useful. The atmosphere attenuates them pretty badly, but satellite to satellite transmissions can use them. fred ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Nov 88 11:26:09 PST From: Jeff Woolsey Subject: Re: Inside House Wiring (and other lines) While I was attending college and living at my parents' house, I had a second line installed for my use. When the time came to leave home I had the service terminated, but I left a multi-line set on it as an extension upstairs for my parents' line. When I returned for a visit a few months later I discovered that the line was live again, and assigned to some business elsewhere in the neighborhood. I obtained its number from ANAC and it was definitely different from the number I had when I used the line... -- -- Television is a medium: it's rarely well done. - Ernie Kovacs Jeff Woolsey woolsey@nsc.NSC.COM -or- woolsey@umn-cs.cs.umn.EDU ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1988 19:38-EST From: Ralph.Hyre@IUS3.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Cc: ghg@ei.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Operating Co's vs. Mobile telco's What right do they have to complain about roamer ports not going offhook (and generating toll charges) until the call is answered? Next they'll want to change POTS (plain old telephone service) to do the same thing. Maybe I should go in the the telco business and get some of this easy money. - Ralph ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@rutgers.edu From: ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) Subject: Re: Laser Beam as a ethernet backbone Date: 1 Dec 88 22:11:10 GMT These guys had a mini demonstration at ComNet last year. They've been promising to demo the thing to Rutgers for nearly two years now. It seems like they might just be getting close now. I'll let people know when they actually deliver. -Ron ------------------------------ From: harvard!cs.utexas.edu!uunet.UU.NET!unh!unhtel!paul Date: Thu, 1 Dec 88 16:47:04 est To: uunet.UU.NET!uunet!bu-cs!telecom@cs.utexas.edu Subject: 900- Rates Thanking those who answered when I wrote: >Not all 900-NXX calls are .50 for the first minute and .35 for each additional >minute... Is there a consistent pricing scheme by "exchange?" Each of you suggested 900-555-1212, which is the obvious answer (which I had not considered!! 8-) for the occasional 900- call question. In my haste to make the original submission brief, maybe I was not clear in stating my need: I need to have a table (hopefully covering ALL possibilities ;-) of 900-nxx related to costs per initial minute and additional minutes, for use in a call pricing and billing system. For example, 900-410-nnnn calls seem to have initial/additional rates of .50/.35, while 900-490-nnnn calls seem to be 2.00/.35; Is this consistent for each "exchange", or could 900-555-1234 have a different rate than 900-555-5678? It would also be interesting to know how many "exchanges" are in use and to which telcos they belong. Actually, 171 "exchanges" are listed in the current v&h tables. Most are named "900SERVICE", but there is also "PREMIUM" and "ADULT MSG" ! Any additional info would be appreciated. Thanks again. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Paul S. Sawyer uunet!unh!unhtel!paul paul@unhtel.UUCP UNH Telecommunications Durham, NH 03824-3523 VOX: 603-862-3262 FAX: 603-862-2030 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Nov 88 11:52:33 PST From: sybase!calvin!ben@tis.llnl.gov (no capitals here) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Long Distance carriers: ATT, MCI vs. Sprint My company currently uses sprint's dial 1 wats service on some 52 lines from our pbx & modems. the line quality (clear as a bell no matter where we call) and rates (never more than $.20/minute on any domestic call) are the chief reasons we're staying with them. recently, sprint has had a number of failures that have crippled domestic service for .5 hour to 3 hours or more. i've been fielding a lot of heat from our company's personnel when this happens and it's no fun. their service to the UK (where we have our european headquarters) sometimes drops calls right in the middle of a conversation; the european service is consistently bad. needless to say, i'm looking to AT & T and MCI to replace sprint service. what i want to know is if others are getting rates similar to ours coupled with very good line quality. i just read in last week's _Network World_ that line quality among the major carriers is evening out and is bacoming less of a selling point. please let me know what kind of rates and line quality you are getting if they are around what i mentioned above. thanks in advance for your replies. ...ben -- consider my words disclaimed ben ullrich "everybody gets so much information all day long that sybase, inc. they lose their common sense." -- gertrude stein emeryville, ca ben%sybase.com@sun.com {pyramid,pacbell,sun,lll-tis,capmkt}!sybase!ben ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Dec 88 22:21:06 EST From: telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU (TELECOM Moderator) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Network Access Fee Up December 1 The monthly bill for network access was increased from $2.60 per line to $3.20 per line effective December 1, in accordance with the Modified Final Judgment. Subscribers will see this increase on their billings in December. Concurrent with the network access fee increase, AT&T announced a reduction in basic interstate long distance rates also effective December 1. The net result will be a $697 million annual reduction in AT&T revenues, which reflects AT&T's lower costs of connecting to the local phone network. Obviously residential and small business subscribers will now be paying more to maintain the same network. In the nearly five years since the divestiture of the Bell System, AT&T has lowered long distance prices by 38 percent. AT&T said Thursday that customers who make interstate long distance calls totalling $16 or more a month will find the increase in the line charge (or network access fee) is offset by the lower long distance rates. AT&T said the average residential customer spent $8.66 on interstate calls during October, 1988, the last month for which figures are available. Here are the exact reductions, as they apply to various types of interstate long distance calls -- Interstate calls more than 124 miles will drop 3.8 percent. Smaller cuts will be made for interstate calls of shorter distances. About 25 percent of AT&T's interstate long distance traffic in October was on calls to points less than 124 miles distant. This decrease is to basic (or daytime) rates. Evenings/nights will calculate their additional discounts on the new rates. Reach Out America rates will be reduced by 4.9 percent. AT&T WATS rates will be reduced 4 percent effective January 1, 1989. In addition, AT&T will bill calls individually based on time and distance. The current hourly pricing method will be discontinued. AT&T 800 INWATS rates will be reduced 3.6 percent effective January 1. US Sprint Communications said its basic (or daytime) rates will decrease across the board by 3.85 percent effective January 1. MCI Communications Corp. declined to announce specifics today, but said a decrease in rates would phase in during January, 1989, and remain competitive with Sprint and AT&T. All of the carriers said there would be no change in the pricing for surcharged calls, such as calls requiring operator intervention or via third party/credit card billing. Obviously, most Americans will see a change of merely *pennies* in their telephone bill starting this month; but large customers of the telcos should at least monitor their billings for a month or two with an eye toward changes in traffic configurations and calling patterns as suggested by the new rates effective today. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest *********************