Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA07367; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 09:02:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 09:02:25 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199612271402.JAA07367@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #681 TELECOM Digest Fri, 27 Dec 96 09:02:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 681 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson L,H,O Pad Formulas Required (Dale Laluk) Can You Recomend a Small Business Switch? (Michael Ayotte) Cellular Network Simulation Packages? (Ravi Prakash) Free Calls From Payphones/COCOTS (Eric Friedebach) Re: WebTV and CoyoteNet; a Minority Report (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: GTE's CyberPOP (John Rice) Re: More on California Geographic Split Decision (John Cropper) Re: Bell Issuing Year-Long *Temporary* Numbers (John R. Levine) Re: California PUC Split on NPA Splits (Nils Andersson) Re: NPA 570 For Colorado (Nils Andersson) Pager Scam - or Wrong Number? (Michael Schuster) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Dec 96 20:48:00 PST From: lunarcom@computime.bc.ca (Dale Laluk) Subject: L,H,O Pad Formulas Required I am interfacing some audio circuits to the KSU at this location and need some padding. I don't remember the formulas for L,H,O Pads and what is the benefits of each one over the other, etc. Does someone have this up on the internet or can reply or fax me details ? I am in a very remote location of Northern British Columbia Canada and the local library doesn't have anything to guide me. TIA. ------------------------------ From: mja-usenet@ayotte.com (Michael Ayotte) Subject: Can You Recomend a Small Business Switch? Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 22:32:31 -0800 Organization: Bit Bucket I thought this would be the appropriate place to get advice on a good small business switch. We have around 40-50 phone lines on a centrex system. We use Pacbell for our voicemail, and currently have one ISDN BRI. We may need more BRIs or a single PRI/FT1/T1 in the future, but if its cost prohibitive, we could have these bypass the switch. We would like to see what it would cost, and what it would save us in the long run to purchase/lease a switch with voicemail capabilities? On a related note, we are investigating remote access (Appletalk and IP) options for around 4-16 users over analog modems (perhaps an ISDN TA or two will pop up in the future). Are there switches that incorporate this funtion? Are they good at the job? Any advice would be appriciated, especially from small business customers. But manufacturers comments are welcome as well. It may be usefull to post the comments here (althought I am not sure that the group charter allows manufactuers to post), or you are welcome to email me at the address listed in my signature. Thanks in advance. Michael Ayotte ------------------------------ From: prakash@cs.rochester.edu (Ravi Prakash) Subject: Cellular Network Simulation Packages? Organization: University of Rochester Computer Science Department Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 15:41:56 GMT I am looking for commercial as well as non-commercial simulation packages for cellular networks. I would like to simulate the performance of some of my distributed algorithms for channel allocation and location management. In the past I have used general purpose process-based simulation packages like CSIM (from MCC) for my simulations. However, it gets progressively painful and time-consuming as the granularity of simulation gets finer. So, any pointers to suitable simulation packages and their documentation will be highly appreciated. With best regards, Ravi Prakash prakash@cs.rochester.edu Department of Computer Science www.cs.rochester.edu/u/prakash University of Rochester Phone: (716) 275-5492 Rochester, NY 14627-0226. Fax: (716) 461-2018 ------------------------------ From: Eric Friedebach Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 07:56:30 EST Subject: Free Calls From Payphones/COCOTS In 1987 I signed up for an 800 number from MCI for my small business that sells technical data for old aircraft. This gave me a certain edge over some of the other folks in the same business. Having an 800 number in those times was not very common within my market. A little side benefit I found was that I could call into the office on my 800 number while out of town cheaper and easier than with a calling card. From a payphone. Fast forward ten years: the distribution of 800 numbers has exploded. So much so that we had to go to 888. The 800/888 market has gone beyond the business market to the consumer market. We now hear cries of protest about access charges from people that rely on payphones/ COCOTS to call home on their own 800/888 number. Same goes for calling cards. But wait a minute here. That big metal box with the handset attached to it found in various public places is called a *PAYphone*. If it is a big metal box of lesser regard it called a COCOT as in *Customer Owned COIN Operated Telephone*. In other words, by their very definition, they work when you pay for them to do so. Maybe a more informed TELECOM Digest reader/poster like Mark Cuccia can correct me here but was not the 800 service originally designed for business use such as customer service/incoming sales? At least that was my intention back in 1987. The possibility of a customer calling me from a payphone did not figure in. Nowadays I also market discount calling cards and 800/888 numbers for home/consumer use. I don't like the thought of my customers having to shell out some extra money if they are using a payphone/COCOT since our marketing efforts have in the past focused on the *free factor* but maybe that's our own fault to start with. As this whole subject settles down, I guess the concept (and cost) of using a public telephone to access your own number will be acceptable. So goes the free market. Eric Friedebach aerostar@ccia.com ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: WebTV and CoyoteNet; a Minority Report Date: 26 Dec 1996 23:56:51 GMT Organization: University of South Florida Brett Frankenberger (brettf@netcom.com) wrote: > In article , > wrote: > There never has been a "Net Culture". The net is just silicon and > copper. What manifested itself as the Net Culture had less to do with > the Net and more to do with the people on the Net. When the Net was > less accessible, it took a certain type of person to get onto it (i.e. > University Research Type or at least a Hacker-type with some friends > who know how to get on). As the Net became more accessible, it > expanded around these circles. I think perhaps you intrepret that phrase a little too tightly, Brett. What you describe in your next graf: > For example, anyone at a University could get an account without > having a specific research need ... and bulletin boards, etc, began to > connect to the net so that any computer-geek, instead of just > well-connected (no pun intended) computer-geeks, could get on. What > we then wound up with was, not a culture of the Net, but rather, the > culture of the people who made up the Net manifesting itself on the > Net. The Net only facilitates letting these kinds of people get > togethor. Rather than discussing on the telephone what I was > interested in with people who shared that interest, I could discuss it > over the Net. And reach many more people who shared my interests that > way. is precisely what I think he meant, and is certainly what _I_ mean, when I use the phrase "Net Culture". > This will not change. I am not the "couch potato - I pay you to keep > me informed type" and I (hopefully) never will be. Nor will I ever > use the Net in that fashion. Unfortunately, personality types such as > those of the people who initially made up the Net are a minority in > society. And, as a result, as the Net becomes more ubiquitous, such > personality types will also become a minority on the Net. This is > neither a good thing or a bad thing I disagree. It is the nature of social groups that the majority tend to guide the decisions made concerning the group's existence, and therefile the directions in which it is inclined to go. The shape of the Internet is, in large part, what it is today, because of the attitudes and intentions of the people who shaped it. > -- it is probably somewhat of a > bad thing that the majority of the population wants to sit in front of > X (whether X is WebTV or broadcast TV or whatever) and be entertained, > but that was a bad thing before the web existed. But the increase in > mindless content doesn't decrease the mindful content. I'm not sure that _this_ will turn out to be true, either, but we'll see. > The difference is that the > couch-potato next door (figuratively speaking -- no offense to my > neighbors :) ) can post about his favorite Bay Watch episode, or > whatever he wishes. > The only disappointment I see is for those who had hoped that the > Internet would revolutionize society. Turn all couch-potatos into > actual, thinking citizens/netizens. Bring everyone into a wonderful > world full of meaningful discussions and mindful content. I never > expected that to happen, and don't currently expect that it will > happen. It is an open question whether the reason that most people don't think is that they _can't_, or that they don't _care_ to, and whether if they're given a well, they'll drink from it. But if we fill the well with horseshit, I'll bet you they'll turn up their noses and walk away. You know, that's "that hotbed of filth, the Internet"? >> My predictions: the differentiation into 'info providers' and 'informa- >> tion consumers' will continue to accelerate, with collaboration, peer >> networks, information sharing, volunteerism and mutuality becoming >> ever less used concepts. > I agree only on the percentage basis. The total amount of > "peer-to-peer" content will not decrease. But it will increase at a > rate slower than the "info provider" content. So you will end up with > a large percentage of the content being info-provider content, but the > actual amount of non-prodiver content won't be less than it would have > been if not for the info-providers. That is, I don't see anyone > deciding skip making a quality site, and instead make a lame personal > site, just so he has more time to go visit www.nekkid-gurls.com. No, unless the advance in infocrap makes it unreasonably slow and unproductive for people to bother putting up things that no one will read anyway because they can't get to it. There's also the argument that the rapid advance of the net is due to the lack of marginal cost to many of the useful services therein (IMDB, Lycos, AltaVista, etc..), and that since there's no practical way _yet_ to provide those services at a reasonably small marginal cost -- and if Commerce and Defense don't get off their asses soon, there never will be -- that the decline in such services will have an effect on the over all shape of the net. Remember, those cbs.com's aren't there for the masses that are there _now_... they're there for the masses that those people think will show up based on the number of us geeks that are there now. >> Most newspapers are calculatedly written for a 4th grade reading level >> today, a least common denominator and thus very large market. This is >> well documented and verifiable, not just an opinion. Pages designed >> for WebTV will aim lower if anything. More than a few sentences on a >> page will be inconsistent with the viewership. This *IS* a change >> from the old Internet, no matter that some apologists will try to make >> it a shameful, elitist thing for us to notice such facts. > But that's not the type of page I am interested in anyway. Are you > suggesting that a large entertainment company, say, NBC, might > actually make meaningful content if it weren't for WebTV? I don't > think so. It's more likely that they wouldn't make *any* content if > no means existed for the mindless masses to get on the Internet and > see their page. No, I think that he's asserting that anything that trades quality for quantity of viewers is, _in the long run_ a bad thing. This has been proven in the TV business. Look at all the 'critically acclaimed' shows that now make good ratings, but took years to get there. CBS.com doesn't have that sort of attention span; the suits won't let them. > This is not a zero sum game. All the content that you always liked > will still be there. It's just that, additionally, we'll have > content for the couch potoatos. And since couch potatos make up a > large percentage of the population, there will be a lot of Web Sites > directed to them. For the reasons noted above, I'm not sure I agree. Certainly, it's not a zero sum game, but the infrastructure isn't keeping up with the growth _now_, and I don't see CBS.com contributing to the IAB. >> "Look it up on the Web" educational assistance will in many, perhaps >> most, cases become another tool for kids to regurgitate rather than >> learn. > But the kids doing that are the same kids who are today plagerizing > one encyclopadeia and then listing five others as references. The Net > makes legitimate research easier, it also makes bad research easier. > But it won't make good researchers become bad researchers, nor will it > make poor researchers into good researchers. It might help in the latter case. If you're a bad researcher because encyclopediae cost $1k, then it might help quite a lot. >> Online discussion groups, whether Usenet or mailing lists, will be >> deluged with folks who don't contribute much. They will either be >> looking for free advice (the internet has been sold as this). > This is one place where we will have to adapt. Without a doubt there > is a change here -- newsgroups that used to be perfectly good places to > have technical discussions and/or meaningful discussions about > non-technical things are now little more than flame-fests and/or forums > for the clueless to ask about thus and such. And indeed, this has been almost-, if not fatal, to many newsgroups I used to particiapte in. Why, oh why, don't the majors start running Usenet software that bounces postings with more than five newsgroups? This seems perfectly _trivial_. > This is the same as everywhere else -- the amount of useful > content is still increasing -- but just not as fast as the amount of > useless content. Unfortunately, while it's relatively easy to avoid > the crap on the web, it's much harder in newsgroups. As I noted, and because of that, it's a _much_ more important problem. IMHO, notwithstanding the web and it's popularity, Usenet is still "the Net", and will be until it dies (film at 11). > This will have to play itself out. Perhaps after enough flames, the > word will spread wide enough. Or maybe we'll end up with a lot more > moderated groups. Neither a fun alternative. > The changing of Usenet is a very real phenomenon, and is already in > progress. (September 1993 -- the September that Never Ended.) Beautiful quote. >> So there will be much movement to implement cable modems and >> xDSL (especially ADSL), to give every one of those consumers 1.5-8 >> Mbps of download channel. Think what that means: ONE NEIGHBORHOOD >> could saturate today's entire backbone, and one city could require the >> backbone to expand 100 fold to keep up (not likely to be well funded >> by $19.95/month). > Increasing backbone capacity is easier than increasing subscriber > capacity. So the backbone will almost certainly keep up. Um, from 28.8 Kbps to 8 Mbps? That's roughly 2.5 orders of magnitude. That's a much bigger jump than they've ever swallowed before. >> Has the ubiquity of CocaCola ads or the popularity of Cheers >> democratized the world? > Here we agree completely. The Web will not democratize the world. It > represents only an incremental change. It's a new media. Technically > quite different than existing media, but fundamentally the same. And it's here that I diverge with you completely, Brett. The web may not "democratize the world", but it is, by it's nature, the first technology that has the _opportunity_ to, because it provides 1) an audience and 2) a low bar to entry. Coke ads and Cheers are a strawman in the face of those two facts, I think. If you think this is fundamentally the same, I suggest you go by a small printing press and attempt to reach the same potential audience as a Sunday paper. >> The best I can hope for now is to keep alive some "commercially >> unviable" niches of intelligent and thoughtful discussion, peer >> creativity, collaborative information exchange, and free and diverse >> thought that will never show up significantly on CBS's broadcasts or >> AT&T's web sites. > My point exactly. But those niches will be bigger than the Net > initally was. Instead of 90% of a relatively small Net, we'll have > .1% of an outrageously huge net. We come out ahead, even if some > other people come out more ahead. And we'll benfit from the > infrastructure put in place to help "them". If, indeed, it is. > This niche will remain, just as it continues to exist in the > non-Internet world. This is my fundamental point. The Net as we know > it will continue to exist ... just as a subset of a much larger net. > My other point would be that no new media is likely going to > completely change the nature of the average lazy person. Those who > had hoped that the Net would radically democratize society -- give > everyone a voice and make everyone a mindful productive netizen -- are > going to be disappointed. Those who do not want to be "democraticized" > are not going to be ... not via the Net ... not via anything else. I'm going to try to comment on Pat's observations, but I'm home sick, and may give up ... > I suspect we will have a lot of new netters with us beginning > later this week. Don't forget, people also buy computers for > their kids at Christmas, and I would like to suggest we all take > the high road and assume that everyone of them mean well until > as *individuals* they prove themselves otherwise. To say that > someone 'means well' is not to say they are not ignorant; it is > not to say there won't be lots of chain letters and spams and > other nuisances. But I dunno ... let's just wish one another a > happy holiday and seek out the best of the net where we can find > it. You can probably tell I am very ambivilent on this point; > there are days I feel like unplugging my terminal and tossing > it all in also; yet when you least expect it, you meet the > *nicest* people. PAT] So you do. Maybe Honda bought the net? Cheers, jr '' a Jay R. Ashworth jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us Member of the Technical Staff Junk Mail Will Be Billed For. The Suncoast Freenet *FLASH: Craig Shergold aw'better; call 800-215-1333* Tampa Bay, Florida http://members.aol.com/kyop/rhps.html +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com (John Rice) Subject: Re: GTE's CyberPOP Date: 26 Dec 96 14:37:24 CDT Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division In article , keithpillow@ sylvaninfo.net writes: > Has anybody gotten any information on this, other than that it exists? > I've read the press release. What's it cost? What are the > particulars? > I checked their web pages and supposedly you can get more info at > http://www.gte.com/cgi-bin/contact/cyberpop/Cando/Carrier/Docs/Wired/cyber2.html > But the form there sends your request to a bogus address: > cyberpopinfo@telops.gte.com > No one at GTE (that I've encountered so far) knows anything about it. > What's the deal? Try sending e-mail to cyberpopinfo@telops.gte.sprint.com . gte.com is not related to GTE, I don't think. Every GTE e-mail address I've ever seen is '@gte.sprint.com' and using nslookup, I see that '@telops.gte.sprint.com' is a valid e-mail address. John Rice rice@ttd.teradyne.com ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Re: More on California Geographic Split Decision Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 02:44:05 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com Linc Madison wrote: > This is very confusing wording. Area codes 310 and 619 are splitting > within the next three months (310/562 on 1-25-97 and 619/760 on > 3-22-97). Is this report projecting that 310 and 619 will split > *again* by the year 2001? The plans for area code 818/626 are nearly > finalized, too. > Of course, the other problem is that 408, 310, 619, 818, 714, 213, 209 > and 805 makes EIGHT area codes, not seven, and neither 7+2 nor 8+2 > makes twelve, and the existing 13 plus 12 new ones don't make the 26 > that we are projected to have by 2001. Your average eight-year-old > can count better than that! Yes, Linc, but we are referring to a group of people that are swayed by the likes of Regina Costa... :-) > Yet more sloppy reportage, surprise, surprise. (Please note that Tad > was only quoting a press report -- the sloppiness is on AP's part, not > Tad's.) The press in general is known for its breaking news, not accurate reporting ... > As for doing a second geographic split of 415, there is only one > acceptable line for a standard two-way split, and that is the Golden > Gate. However, Marin County accounts for only about 1/5 or so of the > exchanges in the newly-reduced 415, and I believe it is growing less > rapidly than San Francisco. Even within San Francisco, the city is > currently divided into three rating zones. "San Francisco 1," which > includes downtown, accounts for over 3/4 of the exchanges in the city > (182 out of 241, as of the 9/96 directory publication date). (Marin > County has about 60 prefixes.) Thus, even if you did a split of SF1 > keeping 415 while SF2, SF3, and all of Marin move into the new area > code, that's still only about a 60/40 split by number of prefixes. Of > course, that split would never fly politically, putting "the > neighborhoods" in an area code they share with Point Reyes but not > with downtown. > That means that we either do a very lopsided split, moving only Marin > into the new area code, and hope that lets us hold out long enough for > an overlay, or we do a three-way split, Marin/Downtown/Neighborhoods, > which would still leave downtown to do an overlay before 2010. What about shifting Marin into 707, and then splitting the rate zones? There would be a handful of prefix reassignments in Marin, but that would prolong the life of the 'newly assigned' codes ... > I also think the commissioners should be involuntarily committed to a > mental hospital for proposing to geographically split area code 213. > They are showing clear symptoms of delusional psychosis. I prefer the term 'T-U-R-N-ITIS', a swelling of the brain caused by activists swarming utility commission meetings! John Cropper voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 LINCS 609.637.9434 PO Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 mailto:psyber@mindspring.com http://206.112.101.209/jcbt2n/lincs/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Dec 96 10:42:00 EST From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: Bell Issuing Year-Long *Temporary* Numbers Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > I can't find any records that indicate that there is a 713-290-XXXX > exchange. Why couldn't they create one so that new customers could > have a 713 number and wouldn't have to change their area code or prefix? It's probably been reserved by a competitive provider. News reports have done a notably bad job of explaining where all of the prefixes have really gone: they're all reserved for potential local service competition. A combination of the way that billing works (by prefix) and the way that routing works (also by prefix) means that every company that is thinking about offering service in an area has to reserve at least one prefix for every rate center that they might serve. This means that when local service was opened up to competition, thousands and thousands of prefixes were scooped up, many of which will never be used, or if they are used, will only have a few hundred customers. At least this is a temporary phenomenon. I gather that most of the scooping has taken place, and when local number portability is implemented it'll fix the routing problem and allow carriers to share prefixes. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, http://iecc.com/johnl, "New witty saying coming soon." ------------------------------ From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Subject: Re: California PUC Split on NPA Splits Date: 24 Dec 1996 19:02:33 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In article , tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) writes: > "All three surveys found that area-code splits are the preferred > method for most people," said Thomas Pulsifer, a PUC administrative > law judge. "The surveys also found concern about confusion over dual > area codes in the same location or same neighborhood." This is one of those cases where the public has no particular opinion until asked. Thus, you can more than normally get whatever answer you want by carefully phrasing the question. Thus, public opinion polls are worthless!!!!! At LEAST, show the questions asked, not just the percentages! Regards and Happy Solstice, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Subject: Re: NPA 570 For Colorado Date: 24 Dec 1996 21:11:06 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In article , Mark J. Cuccia writes: > 570-NXX-xxxx would mean Area Code 570, plus whatever local exchange; > while 303-570-xxxx will continue to mean Area Code 303, plus local > exchange 570 *within the 303 area code*. > With overlays and mandatory ten-digit local dialing, such things *are* > possible, and actually make *more efficient use* of numbering/code > resources than area code splits do. True, but I want to make another point. By Bellcore recommendations (i.e. allowing seven digit or 1+ten or 0+ten) you do not need "mandatory 10 digit dialling". It is quite feasible to allow good old seven digits to mean same area code as caller. I am aware that there are some backward areas of the country (Texas for one) that still insist that the presence or absence of "1+" has something to do with how much a call costs. This paradigm died most places when mechanical switches were carried out to the scrapyard (and should be put to death where still alive). Where it is dead, seven digit dialling would work just fine. Regards and Merry Solstice, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ From: schuster@panix.com (Michael Schuster) Subject: Pager Scam - or Wrong Number? Date: 25 Dec 1996 09:59:17 -0500 Very few people have my direct beeper number; it mainly serves as a conduit for my answering machine to notify me of new messages. So normally I don't answer pages which display unknown numbers. A few months back my pager number was forcibly changed from the 718 to the 917 (pager and cellphone) exchange here in NYC. Since then, an intermittent series on unknown numbers has appeared on my pager, all bearing a similar pattern. 1. Usually Friday or Saturday evenings (sometimes noon on a weekday). 2. Two identical messages 5 minutes apart. 3. No area code, just a 7-digit number. The numbers received seem to rotate through 3 or so of them (I started writing them down). With talk recently of pager scams involving people making unexpected toll calls when answering pages, I've been wary. But I'm getting curious. Ideas? I'm trying to resist dialing 917-xxx-xxxx to see if I can find out. Mike Schuster | 70346.1745@CompuServe.COM schuster@panix.com | schuster@mem.po.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #681 ******************************