Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA20093; Sat, 28 Jan 89 01:11:47 EST Message-Id: <8901280611.AA20093@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 89 0:53:09 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #33 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Sat, 28 Jan 89 0:53:09 EST Volume 9 : Issue 33 Today's Topics: USA-Direct Re: USA-Direct Re: 1+areacode Re: area code map Re: Query about Telebit Re: cheap & easy circuit backup ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 89 10:08:52 EST From: Jerry Glomph Black To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: USA-Direct The USA Direct service doesn't save you money, but it does have advantages. I spent Sept-Nov last year in Australia, and used it frequently. Besides bypassing the hassle of dealing with foreign operators and byzantine phone systems (if you have MOUNTAINS of oversized Aussie coins, you theoretically could dial direct, at prices very similar to USA Direct). The idea of phone credit cards is not widespread. They had a few (10 in the whole country!) special phones at airports that could charge onto your VISA card, I wish these had been more widely available. But I digress. The main advantage of USA Direct was to pre-screen the overseas line quality. You called 0014-xxwhatever, and were rapidly connected to an AT&T operator over either a very good cable line (75% chance), or a really crappy satellite link with echoes, maddening delays, etc. Clearly, you hang up & try again in the latter circumstance, the experience costing nothing but the time to redial the toll-free number. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jan 89 20:48:48 PST From: gast@CS.UCLA.EDU (David Gast) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: USA-Direct > ...In November, AT&T announcd the addition of three new countries to its > USADIRECT service. Now you can dial an access number from 51 countries > to directly reach an AT&T operator in the US. In some countries you can > dial from any residential, business, or public telephone. In others you > must use a dedicated telephone located in hotels, airports and seaports. > And you can use your AT&T card or make a collect call. There's no extra > charge for the service. For more information, call (800) 874-4000." > ***End of item*** > [Comments: I called the 800 number given and asked a couple questions. > The man at the other end said that "no extra charge" in the above means > that, though this service bypasses the foreign country's overseas > operators, you are billed at the regular overseas-call rate for your > call. It just saves you time and hassle to do it this way. They don't > split the call charge into separate overseas-to-US and internal-US > segments, charging separately for each, which is what I had first > envisioned.] Note: I also called several different times and got several different stories from your beloved AT&T. One time I was told that the calls had to be made from special phones; another time I was given a number to dial; another time, the person did not know what I was talking about. USADIRECT? What's that. For the country I inquired about, it is the same price every minute of every day. That rate is fairly reasonable too (except for the fact that there is no reason that there should not be off peak use discounts) and the mandatory operator assisted charges. By fairly reasonable, I mean it costs less than the other country charges for an *operated assisted* call. Based on the above information, I would say that the 'no extra charge' is just marketing hype. They set the rates and then they say there is no *EXTRA* charge. The charges are definitely not the same from X to USA as from the USA to X, even if both are operated assisted. I also fail to see how using USADIRECT saves time or hassle. If you have to go to a special phone, it almost certainly does neither. It might save money, but it might not. From the above country X, it is possible to use a pre-paid phone card or coins at many phones to call the U.S. at direct dial rates. Depending on how long you talk, it may be cheaper than USADIRECT. (By the way, the cards are available every- where, the foreign language name is phonecard, and the largest coin is worth about $4.00, so it is not as if you have to have a stack of dimes available although the marginal incremental cost is about one dime.) The commercials for the service are hogwash as well. I have never tried to make an international call where the operator did not speak English. In many countries they start speaking in English. Perhaps they figure that since AT&T's operators do not speak German or Japanese, foreign countries' operators do not speak English. I suspect that the rules, prices, etc differ from country to country, but I don't have any proof since I only inquired about one country. David Gast gast@cs.ucla.edu {uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast ------------------------------ To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu From: smk@sfsup.UUCP (Stan Krieger) Subject: Re: 1+areacode Date: 26 Jan 89 14:49:21 GMT In article , cmoore@BRL.MIL (VLD/VMB) writes: > > ............... >As I recall, all or part of areas 516 and 914 (these pick up NYC suburbs) have >not required 1 before area codes, nor has Pittsburgh (area 412), and several >years ago I dialed "800" from 3 pay phones in Delaware (prefixes 674,475,478) >without the leading 1. I don't know if any of these changed. While the original reason (we were told) that 1+A/C calling was implemented was to open up central office codes of the form N0N or N1N, and therefore could be confined to places which needed these extra central office codes, the posting of Area Codes a few days ago that showed that almost all possible Area Codes are assigned reveals that a side effect of this will be to open up Area Codes of the form N[2-9]N. The detection of whether the first three digits is an area code or central office is being changed from looking for a 0 or 1 in the second digit to looking for a 1 as the initial digit. It's obvious we're running out of area codes, simply because new services open up more phone numbers. In the beginning, for example, there was Centrex. So, instead of a medium office building having 20 phone lines (and phone numbers), with an operator switching calls in the building, the building may still have only 20 phone lines to the outside, but could be using 200 phone numbers for each of the inside phones. And, I just saw a new service advertised; it wouldn't give any more phone lines, but it would allow homes to have extra phone numbers- a coded ring would indicate what number was being called. In this way, people would know who the call was for before answering the phone. This will create a need for more phone numbers. At least, when 1+A/C becomes the norm, about 4 times more Area Codes than are currently available will become available. -- Stan Krieger Summit NJ ------------------------------ To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu From: smk@sfsup.UUCP (Stan Krieger) Subject: Re: area code map Date: 26 Jan 89 17:35:53 GMT In article , cmoore@BRL.MIL (VLD/VMB) writes: > I saw mention of 1953 Binghamton phone book; did it have an area code map? > I was wondering if there were any area code splits before 305/904 in 1965. When DDD came to Atlantic City, NJ in 1961, besides detailed instructions on how to use Area Codes, etc, we were told that Area Codes were not required to any call in NJ, although the map showed the 201/609 split. There was one list of central office codes and the approximate name of the locality served. A few years later, we were told to start using 201 for calls to Northern NJ. I have since heard that the algorithm for Area Codes was orginally something like this- 1. States with one area code had its second digit as 0; states with multiple area codes had all its area codes with a second digit as 1. 2. Lower numbers were reserved for areas with a large number of phones, so the time to dial NYC (212) for example took less time than less populated areas (like the state of Wyoming). As I further heard, NJ was originally just one area code (201), but it got split before DDD really got moving. -- Stan Krieger Summit NJ ------------------------------ To: telecom%xx.lcs.mit.edu@E.MS.UKY.EDU From: David Herron -- One of the vertebrae Subject: Re: Query about Telebit Date: 26 Jan 89 16:30:30 GMT In article boottrax@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Perry Victor Lea) writes: > Do not use a Telebit modem on an amiga, that is if it's over 9600 baud. >Amiga systems use as a standard US Robotics ONLY! I have never found a 9600 + >baud system that operates with a US robotics. US, has promised to upgrade >their modems and promise compatibility. Without one, people will not be able >to call your BBS, trust me, I use one, and run a bbs. WHAT?!?!?! I've had my trailblazer hooked to my amiga and it worked just fine thank you. Perry, you're very very very confused ... Now if what you were trying to say is that BBS owners generally have US Robotics modems and if most of your business is with BBS's, then yes I agree you should get one of those modems. But my understanding with US Robotics modems is that even though they use V.29 there's a couple of funny things they do that makes the modem basically only useful with another USR modem. Of course I'm in nearly the same boat with my trailblazer, but I rest confident in that technically (at least) I made a better choice. Also, I'm a Unix person and Unix sites tend to have trailblazers ... -- <-- David Herron; an MMDF guy <-- ska: David le casse\*' {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET <-- Now I know how Zonker felt when he graduated ... <-- Stop! Wait! I didn't mean to! ------------------------------ To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu From: westmark!dave@rutgers.edu (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: cheap & easy circuit backup Date: 27 Jan 89 02:26:26 GMT In article , sybase!calvin!ben@Sun.COM (ben ullrich) writes: ... >we're looking for something that won't be too expensive, since we're something >of a smallish operation (only 16 did's and 16 co trunks) and don't have a lot >of money to dump into something we'll almost never need. > >one idea being kicked around is plain ol cellular phones... The use of cellular portable phones as backups when your CO trunks fail sounds like a good idea. But before you invest in them (approximately $1000 per telephone, and about $30/month per telephone before you make the first call) make sure you have decent radio coverage at your location. A cellular dealer ought to be able to demonstrate his product at your location. Also, be aware that conversations on such phones are public. Eavesdropping on cellular is illegal, but its also easy to do, and widely done, and the law is hard to enforce. -- Dave Levenson Westmark, Inc. The Man in the Mooney Warren, NJ USA {rutgers | att}!westmark!dave ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest *********************