Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA22859; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 23:19:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 23:19:11 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801230419.XAA22859@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #18 TELECOM Digest Thu, 22 Jan 98 23:18:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 18 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Bell Atlantic Wants Fees on ISPs (The Old Bear) Re: Bell Atlantic Wants Fees on ISPs (John B. Hines) Re: Bell Atlantic Wants Fees on ISPs (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Bell Atlantic Wants Fees on ISPs (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA (Mark Geary) Re: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA (Stanley Cline) Re: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA (Andreas Pavlik) Re: Stupid Question of the Week (Richard Shima) Re: Stupid Question of the Week (Larry Finch) 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: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: oldbear@arctos.com (The Old Bear) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Wants Fees on ISPs Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 23:26:10 -0500 Organization: The Arctos Group - http://www.arctos.com/arctos ptownson@telecom-digest.org (TELECOM Digest Editor) writes: > Tuesday's edition of the Bell Atlantic news (800-647-NEWS) announced > that BA has gone to court asking the Court of Appeals to overturn the > decision of a lower court giving (what Bell Atlantic called) a 'free > ride' to ISPs regarding carrier access/network fees, etc. They went to > court in St. Louis to get this matter heard. They are asking the court > to force ISPs to 'pay their fair share' based on their volume of > traffic over local telco lines. This is a separate and distinct matter > not connected with the 'modem tax' proposals we are always hearing > about. This is something Bell-Atlantic has cooking on its own. The > rationale given in the telephone news report was that BA has spent > an enormous amount of money upgrading its s equipment just to keep up > with the fast-moving pace of the Internet and its users. They say > they need the money since the ISPs s have 'forced them to upgrade.' This is very interesting, especially in light of the following: THE WEB AT 1.5 MILLION BITS A SECOND Compaq, Intel, and Microsoft are teaming up with major local phone service providers GTE and four of the Bell companies (with the exception of BELL ATLANTIC) to develop technology that would improve Internet access to a speed of 1.5 million bits a second. The new ultrafast modems would use ordinary phonelines but would remain connected to the Net at all times without the need to dial a service provider and without interfering with normal voice conversations over the same line. The project will be based on DSL ("digital subscriber line") technology. as summarized by Edupage from: The New York Times, January 20, 1998 I will leave it to the conspiracy theorists to draw the connection between the two stories. Of course, I received in Wednesday's mail a fancy plastic and cardboard marketing piece, complete with CD-ROM, for "Bell Atlantic.net (sm)" whose marketing material breathlessly exclaims: Where the information is. Where the people are. Where you start with 30 days FREE unlimited usage. The printed material explain that you can chose between $17.95 per month ($198/year) for unlimited usage or $4.95/mo for 5 hours plus $1.95 for each additional hour after the 30-day free trial period. Does this sound like a company which wants to discourage internet use of its facilities? But wait -- that's not all. In the print brochure, there are two tiny footnotes. The first says that the 5-hour measured plan is not available with ISDN connections. (Interestingly, ISDN is only available as a measured service under Bell Atlantic tariffs in New England and New York.) The other tiny footnotes are even more interesting. They read: *GSP charge not included. This, evidently, applies to both the "free 30-day period" and whichever billing plan one elects beyond that. The term "GSP" is never defined in the print material, but one of the footnotes adds "Insert disk for complete details." Well, I did not insert the disk but I did go to the BellAtlantic.net web page and learned: Bell Atlantic.net service via ISDN is not currently available in NY, MA, ME, VT, CT, RI and NH. (For customers in VA, DC, MD, PA, NJ and DE, Bell Atlantic definitely has a service that will meet your needs at an affordable price. You can order the Bell Atlantic.net service for ISDN by filling out our online order form.) GSP stands for Global Service Provider. GSPs are companies which provide connections directly to the Internet -- a service that Bell Atlantic cannot provide to its customers in its region at this time. Other Internet Service Providers (ISPs) charge for long distance data carrier (GSP) service but their charges are often incorporated into their monthly service fee. Bell Atlantic gives you a choice of Global Service Providers, and separates their pass-through charges from our service charges because communications over the Internet have been ruled a long-distance service. Until Bell Atlantic receives approval to enter the long-distance market in our 7-state region, you will be asked to choose a GSP as your "long distance" Internet carrier for Internet connections. I hope someone sends the Government lawyers in St. Louis their free Bell Atlantic Net disks soon. :) Cheers, The Old Bear ------------------------------ From: jhines@enteract.com (John B. Hines) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Wants Fees on ISPs Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 22:28:14 GMT Organization: EnterAct L.L.C. Turbo-Elite News Server And in today's news http://www.yahoo.com/headlines/980122/tech/stories/bellatlantic_2.html They are getting into DSL services. Is this just a coincidence? ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo@nospam.ultranet.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Wants Fees on ISPs Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 21:30:49 -0500 Organization: The Cesspool > about. This is something Bell-Atlantic has cooking on its own. The > rationale given in the telephone news report was that BA has spent > an enormous amount of money upgrading its s equipment just to keep up > with the fast-moving pace of the Internet and its users. They say > they need the money since the ISPs s have 'forced them to upgrade.' Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha to Bell "The Empire" Atlantic. Here in RI, a couple of the ISP's have already switched over to Brooks. Let's see BA collect off that one. These companies KNEW that demand was going to explode once the Bell System was broken up, yet they did nothing then and now they expect us to pay the price. Here's what I tell my customers when I install a network for them, "You can spend $25 now for me to add that extra tap, or you can spend $220 when you ask me to add it later." I'm so glad that in the next month or two, I'll be able to tell the jerks at BA to kiss my butt. First chance I get, both my lines get switched to another carrier, thank you. I'm sick and tired of the monopoly companies trying to eek out every dime they can from subscribers. Curiously, it's common knowledge here in RI that BA is "adjusting" it's business rates due to competition. HA HA HA! Several years ago some friends and I did a little experiment and determined that there was no need for in-state tolls. The actual cost to Nynex at the time was .0006 per minute, not .15 a minute. > If you get a chance, listen to the message before it gets changed, and > post your thoughts here. Remember that 800-647-NEWS is intended for > *internal* use by BA employees, and is not an official media source > for news from the company. Thanks for posting that. Back when Nynex was still the company you could dial 955-5000 here and get the Nynex News. Tony ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Wants Fees on ISPs Date: 21 Jan 1998 05:32:20 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates On Tue, 20 Jan 1998 17:00:00 EST, TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > Tuesday's edition of the Bell Atlantic news (800-647-NEWS) announced > that BA has gone to court asking the Court of Appeals to overturn the > decision of a lower court giving (what Bell Atlantic called) a 'free > ride' to ISPs regarding carrier access/network fees, etc. They went to > court in St. Louis to get this matter heard. They are asking the court > to force ISPs to 'pay their fair share' based on their volume of > traffic over local telco lines. This is a separate and distinct matter > not connected with the 'modem tax' proposals we are always hearing > about. This is something Bell-Atlantic has cooking on its own. The > rationale given in the telephone news report was that BA has spent > an enormous amount of money upgrading its s equipment just to keep up > with the fast-moving pace of the Internet and its users. They say > they need the money since the ISPs s have 'forced them to upgrade.' Great. Alas, it's not in that court's jurisdiction. This was dealt with last year, and the FCC apparently feels it has the right to reserve jurisdiction on the topic of access fees, and this is what I sent to all my correspondents on the topic: ------------------------ It's come to my attention that people think that the FCC's plan last year to investigate charging Internet Service Providers access fees the way telcos are charged -- by the minute -- has cropped up again. It hasn't. This is a dead issue. Here's the web page from the FCC's web site that says so; you might wish to clip the portion between the lines and keep it around for forwarding to the next person who tells you about this. :-) ==================================================================== [retrieved from www.fcc.gov, 11 January 1998] THE FCC, INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS, AND ACCESS CHARGES This fact sheet offers informal guidance on an issue that has generated a great deal of public interest. For more specific details about the proceedings currently before the Commission, please visit our web site (http://www.fcc.gov/). _________________________________________________________________ In December 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requested public comment on issues relating to the charges that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and similar companies pay to local telephone companies. On May 7, 1997, the FCC decided to leave the existing rate structure in place. In other words, the FCC decided not to allow local telephone companies to impose per-minute access charged on ISPs. Please Note: There is no open comment period in this proceeding. If you have recently seen a message on the Internet stating that "in response to a request from local telephone companies, the FCC is requesting comments to by February 1998", be aware that this information is inaccurate. The FCC issued an unrelated public notice, DA 98-2, on January 5, 1998 in connection with a report to Congress on universal service. Pursuant to the FCC's 1998 appropriations legislation, the Commission must submit a report by April 10, 1998 on several issues including the legal status of Internet services under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Comments in response to the public notice are due January 20, 1998, and reply comments are due February 2, 1998. Informal comments may be sent by email to . _________________________________________________________________ Background Information Each long distance telephone call you make includes per-minute fees that your long distance carrier pays to the originating and terminating local telephone companies over whose facilities that call also travelled. Those fees, which are designed to recover the costs to local telephone companies for use of their facilities, are referred to as "access charges." As part of its Access Reform proceeding, CC Docket 96-262, the FCC in December 1996 sought comment on the treatment of ISPs and other "enhanced service providers" that also use local telephone companies' facilities. Since the access charge system was established in 1983, enhanced service providers have been classified as "end users" rather than "carriers" for purposes of the access charge rules, and therefore they do not pay the per-minute access charges that long-distance companies pay to local telephone companies. In the Access Reform Order, FCC 97-158, adopted on May 7, 1997, the FCC concluded that the existing rate structure for ISPs should remain in place. In other words, the Commission reaffirmed that ISPs are not required to pay interstate access charges. When it began the Access Reform proceeding, the Commission also issued a Notice of Inquiry, CC Docket 96-263, seeking comment more broadly on usage of the public switched telephone network by Internet and interstate information service providers. A Notice of Inquiry is a request for information that does not involve any specific proposed action. The Commission stated in the Access Reform order that it intended to use the Notice of Inquiry record to develop a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing actions to facilitate the efficient deployment of data networks. _________________________________________________________________ Frequently Asked Questions on Internet Services and Access Charges Q: Does the FCC regulate the rates charged by Internet Service Providers (ISPs)? A: No. ISPs are considered "enhanced service providers" under FCC rules. The FCC does not regulate the rates that enhanced service providers charge to their subscribers. ___________________________________ Q: How does the FCC regulate the rates that local telephone companies charge to ISPs? A: ISPs purchase local phone lines so that customers can call them. Under FCC rules, enhanced service providers ISPs are considered "end users" when they purchase services from local telephone companies. Thus, ISPs pay the same rates as any other business customer, and these rates are set separately in each state. By contrast, long-distance companies are considered "carriers," and they pay interstate access charges regulated by the FCC. ___________________________________ Q: How are access charges different from the rates ISPs pay now? A: Today, ISPs typically purchase "business lines" from local phone companies. Business lines usually include a flat monthly charge, and a per-minute charge for making outgoing calls. Because ISPs receive calls from their subscribers rather than making outgoing calls, ISPs generally do not pay any per-minute charges for their lines, which is one reason many ISPs do not charge per-minute rates for Internet access. Access charges, by contrast, include per-minute fees for both outgoing and incoming calls. The rate levels of interstate access charges are also in many cases higher than the flat business line rates ISPs pay today. ___________________________________ Q: Have local phone companies requested authority from the FCC to charge per-minute rates to ISPs? A: Since 1983, there has been an ongoing debate about whether enhanced service providers should be required to pay access charges, based on the contention that these companies use local networks in the same manner as long-distance carriers. In June 1996, four local telephone companies (Pacific Bell, Bell Atlantic, US West, and NYNEX) submitted studies to the FCC concerning the effects of Internet usage on these carriers' networks. The companies argued that the existing rate structure did not reflect the costs imposed on local telephone companies to support Internet access, and that Internet usage was causing congestion in part of the local network. In connection with these studies and other pleadings, several local phone companies have asked the FCC for authority to charge interstate access charges to ISPs, although they have not filed a formal petition for rulemaking. ___________________________________ Q: Is the FCC considering allowing local phone companies to impose access charges on ISPs? A: The FCC requested public comment in December 1996 on whether ISPs should pay current access charges, and more generally on how Internet and interstate information services that use local telephone networks should be treated. The Commission concluded on May 7, 1997 that ISPs should not be subject to interstate access charges. There is currently no open comment period on this issue. ___________________________________ Q: Does the FCC currently have an ongoing proceeding on Internet and interstate information services? A: The FCC issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) in December 1996, at the same time as it asked for comment on whether ISPs should be subject to access charges. The NOI asked generally about how to create incentives for companies to make the most efficient use of the telephone network for Internet and other information services. The comment period for the NOI is closed, but the FCC has stated that it plans to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) asking for comment on more specific proposals based on the responses to the NOI. The NPRM will consider actions other than imposition of per-minute access charges on ISPs. ___________________________________ Q: What is the difference between a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)? A: A NOI is the earliest step in the FCC's process and typically asks questions in an effort to gather enough information to make informed proposals on a given topic. A NPRM is a request for comment on specific proposals made by the Commission. After the FCC reviews the comments filed in response to an NPRM, the FCC can issue a Report and Order adopting new rules. ___________________________________ Q: Are comments filed by other parties be available for review? A: Yes. All formal comments are available for review in the FCC Reference Center in Washington DC, and copies may be purchased through International Transcription Services, which can be reached at 202-857-3800. In addition, copies of comments that were submitted on diskette are available for review at http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/comments.html. ___________________________________ Q: Is the FCC considering taxes for use of the Internet or online services? A: No. The debate involves charges levied by local phone companies, not government taxes. ___________________________________ Q: Is this the "FCC modem tax" that has been floating around the Internet in various forms for several years? A: The "modem tax" referred to a proposal in 1987 to require enhanced service providers to pay interstate access charges, which at that time were significantly higher than they are today. The 1987 proposal was abandoned in 1988. The current Access Reform proceeding is entirely separate. ___________________________________ For more specific questions, see the Access Reform page on the on the FCC Web site at http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html. Last Updated January 7, 1998 --------------------- I hope this clarifies the issue. Basically, the Circuit court would have to overrule the FCC. I'm not sure they can actually even do that, since the FCC holds inclusive venue, being a federal, rather than merely circuit, agency, but IANAL. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ From: geary@lucent.com (Mark Geary) Subject: Re: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA Date: 21 Jan 1998 02:27:06 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Columbus, Ohio Reply-To: geary@lucent.com In article , T. S. Chomicz wrote: > AT&T accepts MC, DC, AX, their own cards, and most LEC cards. They do > not accept VISA, regardless of your ethnic origin. Probably what the > operator was confused about was that if you have an AT&T Universal > VISA, you can use the calling card number printed on the bottom of the > card, but not the main VISA number itself. Last month I was visiting San Francisco and used my AT&T Universal VISA to make long distance calls home. I know I used the VISA number and not the calling card number because I had forgotten my PIN for using the calling card. Mark Geary ------------------------------ From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 03:40:08 GMT Organization: By area code and prefix (NPA-NXX) Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com On 20 Jan 1998 00:15:40 GMT, tomc@marconi.ih.lucent.com (T. S. Chomicz) wrote: > AT&T accepts MC, DC, AX, their own cards, and most LEC cards. They do > not accept VISA, regardless of your ethnic origin. Probably what the Other large IXCs, including MCI and Sprint, as well as the two large "credit card roaming companies" (i.e., Boston Communications Group dba Cellular Express, and American Roaming Network) do not take Visa as well. Strangely, some LECs and AOSleaze providers (such as 1-800-BellSou[th], which Teltrust operates on behalf of BS) *DO* take Visa; virtually all cellular carriers and some LECs and IXCs take Visa cards for payments, deposits, etc. on established accounts (I had a low-rate calling card billed to a Visa card for some time); and AT&T and some LECs, notably BellSouth, offer co-branded Visa cards! AFAICT, Visa simply doesn't want its cards used as a "calling card", unless it goes through VisaPhone (whose service is provided by MCI) -- notwithstanding the facts that a) offering VisaPhone may be a conflict of interest for some co-branded card issuers (*especially* AT&T), and b) it does nothing at all to address the wireless roaming/airphone services, which IMO is more of a problem. > instructions for the AT&T air to ground phones, VISA is not listed > among the acceptable credit cards. This should be indicative of the The main question that Visa has so far refused to answer: Why are cellular and airphone services lumped together with traditional calling card usage? They are NOT THE SAME THING, if only because "equal access" is an alien term when it comes to wireless. What are wireless providers to do, provide access to VisaPhone *AND* CX/ARN/whatever? I assume "fraud" has something to do with it, but Visa has never said a word. (Yes, one can use LEC and/or AT&T cards -- I've had to do so with the cellular crap [thank US Cellular for having no service where I was] once or twice -- but that's absurd) > I understand they do this because of some operational restrictions > that VISA USA places on telecommunications companies. I do not know > the exact details. The restrictions certainly don't apply to everyone in the telecom biz. Allowing Teltrust (and Oncor and other AOS crap), but not Boston/CellEx or AT&T, to take Visa, is plain stupid. VisaPhone has been a flop, at least in the US, and they know it, but refuse to give up their ground. Stanley Cline (IRC:Roamer1).....Telecommunications & Consumer Advocacy Chattanooga & Atlanta..............(no spam!) roamer1[at]pobox[dot]com main web page.......................http://scline.home.mindspring.com/ the payphone page....................http://cocot.home.mindspring.com/ ------------------------------ From: pavlik@pap.univie.ac.at (Andreas Pavlik) Subject: Re: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:24:18 GMT Organization: University of Vienna On 20 Jan 1998 02:52:21 -0000, johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote: > I recall reading somewhere that Visa is trying to start their own Visa > phone card system which got them into a fight with telcos including > AT&T, with the result that AT&T does indeed take every kind of plastic > on the planet other than Visa. It's not red-lining -- they really > reject all sorts of Visa cards. At least European VISA cards can be used as calling cards using a service called Visaphone, which is done by Sprint/Global One. For Austrian VISA cards the "calling card number" is the main credit card number plus a PIN which is different from the PIN to be used at ATMs. Andreas Pavlik University of Viennaienna, Austria ------------------------------ From: Richard Shima Subject: Re: Stupid Question of the Week Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 00:18:56 -0500 Organization: The Shima Co. Reply-To: RShima@att.net Bill Levant wrote: > I have a Motorola Tele-T-A-C 550 (flip) cellular phone with > the standard, NiCD battery, and Motorola's combination > slide-in stand and charger. The battery is only good for > about two hours of standby, or 15 minutes on the phone (down > from 8 hours and 1 hour when new) and I want to replace it > with an NiMH battery. > Question: Do I need a new charger, too? If your charger has a high- or fast-rate charge, I say definitely. > No one will give me a straight answer; Radio Shack's catalog > (now THERE'S an authoritative source) sez "you MAY need a new > charger..." (thanks lots), but none of the third-party > catalogs I've looked in say anything about a different kind of > charger ... One must consider a rechargeable battery and it's associated charger a system; by design they're interdependent for optimal operation and safety. There's a lot more here than meets the casual eye. Rechargeable battery packs are encased with more than just battery cells, wire, and contacts--they likely have thermistors, diodes, and some include LEDs, thermocouples, and "smart" circuitry that work in concert with the charger unit, effectively in an electrical system loop. These elements are used variously ... to display a charge, regulate the charge rate (higher when cool, lower when hot), help to prevent overcharge, and prevent meltdown/explosion from overheating/overcharging/shorting. There is a tradeoff between ultimate battery life and the charge rate--higher charge rate = faster recovery/usability for the customer = shorter overall lifetime. Some chargers hit the battery hard when it is cool and discharged, then cut back the charge rate when the battery warms up and tops off; some use special waveshapes to charge more effectively, and some add sophisticated current sensing so they can charge very fast but safely. But how one charges effectively and economically also depends upon the type of battery--it's elemental/chemical makeup. The charger unit needs to be designed to work with a particular type of battery (its properties). Optimal charging rates, temperatures, etc. vary with battery properties; NiCAD and NiMH are different ~animals~. Don't buy a battery from anyone who cannot tell you whether it's designed/guaranteed to work safely with, or not to work with your OEM charger. Generally speaking, NiCAD needs a NiCAD designed charger; NiMH needs a NiMH designed charger. A potential mismatch between battery and charger is most critical--possibly even dangerous--when dealing with fast (high) recharge rates; trickle only charge rates aren't as much of a problem. Play safe and deal so you have recourse. A suggestion might be to ask your Motorola supplier whether Motorola itself offers a NiMH replacement battery that works properly with your Tele-T-A-C and the associated OEM NiCAD battery charger. Take note of that Motorola battery model/part number. Beside OEM battery replacement, there are lots of third-party replacement battery makers that offer decent warranties, specific replacement batteries (by model, etc.), and guarantees, along with charger suitability charts. Search the Web if your local cellular phone supplier waffles. Richard Shima | Internet: RShima@att.net The Shima Co. | CompuServe: 74037,2425 Mayfield Heights | FidoNet (Point on Nerd's Nook): 1:157/2.10 Ohio 44124 USA | Voice & fax: 440 461-4357 | Radio: WB8MTE ------------------------------ From: Larry Finch Subject: Re: Stupid Question of the Week Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 20:50:45 -0500 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Bill Levant wrote: > Thanks to everyone who wrote with info about ISDN. I now know what I > need. > Being as it's Sunday, the beginning of a whole new week, I have a > whole new dumb question: > I have a Motorola Tele-T-A-C 550 (flip) cellular phone with the > standard, NiCD battery, and Motorola's combination slide-in stand and > charger. The battery is only good for about two hours of standby, or > 15 minutes on the phone (down from 8 hours and 1 hour when new) and I > want to replace it with an NiMH battery. > Question: Do I need a new charger, too? No one will give me a > straight answer; Radio Shack's catalog (now THERE'S an authoritative > source) sez "you MAY need a new charger..." (thanks lots), but none of > the third-party catalogs I've looked in say anything about a different > kind of charger ... > Once again, slightly off-topic, so E-Mail welcomed. If you have the standard Motorola "overnight" charger you don't need a new one. If you have a Motorola EP charger (the "intelligent" charger), you don't need a new one. You need a new one if the charger you have is a rapid charger (charges your battery in 2 hours or less) AND it is not designed for NiMH batteries. The logic here is that NiMH batteries cannot be fast charged without a special monitoring circuit. LarryFinch@aol.com LarryFinch@worldnet.att.net larry@prolifics.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #18 *****************************