Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/recent.single.issues/V16_#18

Internet Message Format | 1996-01-15 | 33KB

From [e-mail]  Mon Jan 15 23:17:18 1996
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id XAA08696; Mon, 15 Jan 1996 23:17:18 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 23:17:18 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #18

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 15 Jan 96 23:17:00 EST    Volume 16 : Issue 18

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Is ISDN Dying Already? (John R Levine)
    Re: Is ISDN Dying Already? ([e-mail])
    Re: Is ISDN Dying Already? (Stephen Balbach)
    Re: Is ISDN Dying Already? (William Brasuell)
    Re: Is ISDN Dying Already? (Robert I. Sinclair)
    Re: Telephone Bill Auditing Advice Needed (Bob Schwartz)
    Re: Warning to All Net Users ([e-mail])
    Re: 60Hz Buzz on Phone Line and Modem Problems (Ray Barker)
    Re: 60Hz Buzz on Phone Line and Modem Problems (Gerry Wheeler)
    Re: Learning About Corporate Telecom Buying? (Robert Wolf)
    Re: A Question About Inside Wiring Standards (John Fricks)
    Re: Canada Number Portability (Lis Angus)
    Re: Enhanced Full Rate Vocoder (Sudeep Bhoja)
    Re: Fridays are Free With Sprint (Steven R Kleinedler)
    Re: Fridays are Free With Sprint (TELECOM Digest Editor)
    He's BAAAACCCKKKK !! - The Return of the Slaton Thing (John R. Levine)

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:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address: [e-mail]

Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

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: Mon, 15 Jan 96 19:44:00 EST
From: [e-mail] (John R Levine)
Subject: Re: Is ISDN Dying Already?
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y.


> Since I had understood that they were pushing ISDN prety heavily, I
> started asking some knowledgable folks at work what was up.  They told
> me that ATT was about to introduce a new compression scheme for data
> transmission for twisted pairs that would make most current needs for
> ISDN obsolete. ...

They're probably referring to ADSL or SDSL, which provide multi-megabit
speeds over a copper pair.  Like ISDN, they require special equipment
at each end of the connection.  ADSL provides something like T1 speed
in one direction, and 64K or so in the other.  SDSL is multimegabit
each way.

I wouldn't give up on ISDN quite yet.  For one thing, ISDN is
considerably farther along the learning curve, so you are now starting
to see retail ISDN adapters for reasonable prices, and support for
ISDN hardware on popular computers.  It'll be at least a couple of
years before ADSL or SDSL reach anything like that point.  Also,
adapting an existing phone switch for ISDN is relatively
straightforward, since the 64K channels on ISDN match the existing
switching channels in modern digital phone switches.  I'd think that
handling the much larger channels that ADSL and SDSL require would
need a lot more work in the switch, and would hence be much more
expensive for a telco to provide.

Besides, ISDN now does what it does pretty well.  64K or 128K data can
be provided at close to POTS rates, either locally or remotely, and is
adequate for a lot of networking, and you can use ISDN for voice as
well.  I see in the papers that the number of second home phone lines
is exploding, and I'd think in a rational world that a single ISDN
line would serve the vast majority of purposes that otherwise would
need two POTS lines.

Yeah, faster is nicer (I should talk, I have a T1 in my back bedroom)
but at what price?


John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 [phone]
[e-mail] "Space aliens are stealing American jobs." - Stanford econ prof

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (WereCat)
Subject: Re: Is ISDN Dying Already?
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 13:27:43 GMT


Some time ago [e-mail] wrote:

> Since I had understood that they were pushing ISDN prety heavily, I
> started asking some knowledgable folks at work what was up.  They told
> me that ATT was about to introduce a new compression scheme for data
> transmission for twisted pairs that would make most current needs for
> ISDN obsolete.  The Telco *expert* was, of course, not there today to
> answer with any authority.  However, others have noticed the chill
> reception given to inquiries also.

Years ago, many years ago, ISDN was introduced.  The RBOC's dragged
and dragged their feet in making ISDN available.  They had too much
invested in POTS.  Why should they throw out all the investment they
made in ISDN for some other technology?


Eric

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Stephen Balbach)
Subject: Re: Is ISDN Dying Already?
Date: 14 Jan 1996 21:22:04 -0500
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Balt/DC, mail [e-mail]


This must be in reference to ADSL, it is not new and AT&T Paradyne is
releasing a low-cost router which uses ADSL compression.

However, it requires the the RBOC have ADSL as a service which none do
to my knowledge.  Its mostly used on campus networks, or by the RBOC's
in thier internal networks when 2-pair is not cost effective they can
run 1-pair and use HDSL and achieve T1 speeds.

When the RBOC's have invested as much time and money in a ADSL
infrastructure as they have in ISDN over the past 10 years, you may
see ADSL/HDSL as a threat to ISDN.


Stephen Balbach  "Driving the Internet to Work"
VP, ClarkNet     due to the high volume of mail I receive please quote
[e-mail]   the full original message in your reply.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (William Brasuell)
Subject: Re: Is ISDN Dying Already?
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 17:56:41 -0800
Organization: Tandem Computers


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jim
Hornbeck) wrote:

> Recently I called Pac Tel to inquire about ISDN service and received
> a rather cool reception.

> What have I missed? Is Ma Bell on the verge of introducing something
> worth while or is this just smoke?

PacBell understimated demand and is now busy expanding capacity. In
the meantime they can't provision service so they are not encouraging
new orders.

It's much more popular than they estimated.

My opinion anyway.


Bill Brasuell

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Robert I Sinclair )
Subject: Re: Is ISDN Dying Already?
Date: 15 Jan 1996 04:16:59 GMT
Organization: Netcom


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Hornbeck)
writes:

> Recently I called Pac Tel to inquire about ISDN service and received
> a rather cool reception.

What they may be discussing is ADSL. I don't know of any US carriers
that are planning to offer it at the moment. It is purported to
provide a 6MB per/sec downlink and 640kb?? uplink. The benefit to ISDN
now is the higher rates go through the existing telephone network
while ADSL will have to have a high speed data network to carry the
traffic from point to point. Take a look at the ADSL web page more
more complete info:

http://www.sbexpos.com/sbexpos/associations/adsl/what_is.html


Robert-s

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Bob Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Telephone Bill Auditing Advice Needed
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 01:36:56 -0800
Organization: BCI


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Dan Pock) wrote:

> HELP!

> I am a full time telecommunications student at DeVry.  Working a full
> time job is killing me and cutting into my studies but I have no
> choice.  I've been thinking about starting a home based business
> auditing phone bills but I don't study tariffs for another two
> semesters.

> Does anyone out there no where I can get started with this?  I think
> the first step is to get training in understanding tariffs but I don't
> know where to begin.  Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Daniel,

I've been auditing phone bills for over ten years. Your post is
distressing to say the least.

You imply you have little or no time. It takes time to start ANY business
and telecom auditing takes months to generate a decent cash flow-unless.
The field is competative so a newcomer wannabe needs connectiuons to
clients, lots of them.

Never mind your tariff class. Go get a tariff and find out how it is
to read. DRY and TECHNICAL and requires intense concentration coupled
with the ability to do some sophisticated analysis, negotiation,
patience and a hell of a lot of perseverence and the ability to keep
about 25 diverse and unique simultaneuos projects moving. it also
takes a war chest because every vendor knows how to spoof and delay
until you are broke or need a day job. It is not easy getting refunds
from people whose job often depends on them not understanding what
you're talking about.

Another thing it takes is A TECHNICAL BACKGROUND or at least an
understanding of telecom.

The telecom bill auditing industry has been polluted with amateurs
that believe the hype they read about the great home business
opportunity. They go to a seminar, pay lots of money and expect to be
handed a magic wand or something that will make them understand phone
bills and enable them to work with telecom vendors. Those that do
actually get unsuspecting clients find that they have made
representations that they can't deliver. Then they call a pro and see
if they can save face and get bailed out. I've recieved over a hundred
such calls.  I've run into several hundreds of companies that signed
up for an audit and never heard from the auditor again.

Here is my advise to you. KEEP YOUR DAY JOB. If you think you can sell
audits then do it for a professional outfit. If you are not inclined
towards sales and have never done billing analysis or even customer
service then GET A BETTER DAY JOB.

I'll be out of town for several weeks (a well deserved vacation after
collecting two million from Pacific Bell for a Centrex FEX error -- it
took four partners five years) [focus on the years not the dollars.]
and not reading the Digest so I'll probablly miss any response to this
but if you're inclined ... [e-mail]


*BOB*  Bill Correctors, Inc.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] ([e-mail])
Subject: Re: Warning to All Net Users
Date: 15 Jan 1996 20:32:37 GMT
Organization: Pipeline USA


On Jan 11, 1996 23.31.39 in article <Warning to All Net Users>,
'[e-mail] (Emmanuel Goldstein)' wrote:

> Our nightmare with PSI has been ongoing since August of 1995. We have
> tried to be reasonable and have given them every opportunity to
> respond to us and resolve our problem amicably. They have ignored our
> letters, phone calls, and email. We have no choice but to bring these
> unpleasant facts to the widest possible audience -- the net itself -- in
> the hopes that others will see the way this company is using deception
> and false promises to lure in customers. It is our wish that nobody
> else be taken in as we were.

I use them for dialup service, and they were all but befuddled when I
dialed in using an older version of their software, and had massive
problems. It took a supervisor, and fourty minutes of my long distance to
figure out that all I needed to do was upgrade the version I was running.

Like any infant company, they are obviously suffering through growing pains
(i.e. hiring people off the street for cust service, using OJT to try
formally train them.), but to milk the customer in the process is not good
practice.

> So far, PSI has taken nearly $1300 from us and provided absolutely
> nothing in return. Not only that, but they have stated that they will
> continue to charge our credit card for an entire year and that we have
> no choice but to pay them what they demand. It sounds incredible and
> even unbelievable.  But every word is true and we have the evidence to
> back it up.

They can charge, but you can dispute. Let the CC company run interference
while you call in the BBB on them. Additionally, since phone service is
involved in the perceived fraud, you might want to consider bringing the
phone provider in on things.

> hours.  The audio calls are billed at normal phone rates, however.
> This is how the system works throughout the nation.

> One of the very first things we asked PSI when we contacted them was
> whether or not they supported data over voice. On two separate
> occasions we were told that they did. When it became clear that they
> were offering the service we wanted, we signed a faxed contract. This
> contract makes no specific mention of speeds and/or configurations
> that are or aren't supported.

ACK! If you don't have the specific configurations and a guarantee in
writing, you will have a major problem in any litigation you choose to
pursue.

> PSI can be reached at [phone], fax [phone]. However, you
> are setting yourself up for disappointment if you believe your
> comments will carry any weight with them. On the other hand, it can't
> hurt to try.

Good luck to you, you've got one helluva fight ahead!

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Ray Barker)
Subject: Re: 60Hz Buzz on Phone Line and Modem Problems
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 96 01:04:09 GMT
Organization: modus operandi


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Doug
Rudoff) wrote:

> My step-mom's house's phone line has a very loud 60 Hz buzz. Any
> suggestions on how to get rid of it?

> It affects modem connections. The 2400 baud modem she has on her
> computer system can connect, but when I use my Global Village
> Powerport Gold (14.4 kbaud) I have no luck connecting even when I set
> it to connect at 2400 baud.

> Are there any filters that will help?

Call the trouble line of your local telco (usually 611).  That
interference shouldn't be there.  Sounds like a bad ground somewhere.


modus operandi              | Proprietor: Ray Barker
Computer Network            | Voice: [phone]
Consulting & Contracting    | Fax: [phone]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Gerry Wheeler)
Subject: Re: 60Hz Buzz on Phone Line and Modem Problems
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 13:44:34 GMT
Organization: SpectraFAX Corp.
Reply-To: [e-mail]


[e-mail] (Doug Rudoff) wrote:

> My step-mom's house's phone line has a very loud 60 Hz buzz. Any
> suggestions on how to get rid of it?

Call the phone company and ask them to fix it.

The phone system is designed around "balanced pair" wiring -- the two
wires connected to your phone travel identical routes, right next to
each other, so any induced noise (hum) in one should be canceled by
the same noise induced in the other. However, if the pair becomes
different it becomes unbalanced, and you get hum. A common problem is
that one of the wires has become fully or partially grounded, or that
one of the wires in the pair of wires in the cable which runs past
your house has become open at some point beyond your connection --
you're still connected to the CO, but the pair is unbalanced.


Gerry Wheeler 941-643-8739 voice SpectraFAX Corp.  941-643-5070 fax
Naples, FL [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: Robert Wolf <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Learning About Corporate Telecom Buying?
Date: 15 Jan 1996 16:53:20 GMT
Organization: Millennium Telecom


Daniel Wynalda <[e-mail]> wrote:

> While I know what a T1 is and how it works, I'm curious as to if
> there is a location one might look/read to learn about various
> telecommunication packaging schemes.

> For example:

> Since I have 17 phone lines, is there a way I can buy a T1 or something
> similar that would combine my lines and use the extra bandwidth for
> data to an alternate carrier?   I am lucky enough to live in one of
> the local areas with competitive phone service.  I don't know that
> I really am looking to save money -- but it would be nice to get upgraded
> internet service via this bandwidth if it could be used.

First, a multiplexor with drop-and-insert capabilities would be able
to use 17 channels of the T-1 for voice traffic and allocate other
channels for other functions (i.e. two channels for Internet access,
two other channels for videoconferencing, etc.)

Second, a local telecommunications consultant may provide additional
information.  Contact the Society of Telecommunications Consultants
headquarters at: (800) STC-7670 [e-mail]


Robert Wolf        member: Society of Telecommunications Consultants
Millennium Telecom         http://www.keyconnect.com/millennium
818-790-7339               Fax [phone]
Consulting in Voice, Video, and Data Communications

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 14:25:37 +0000
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: A Question About Inside Wiring Standards
Organization: Nortel


In article <[e-mail]>, James A. Young
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> In cleaning out my file drawer last night I came across an old brochure
> from my local telco (US West) about telephone inside wiring standards.
> The brochure states that each outlet in my home should have separate
> wires connecting to the demarcation point and sure enough, all the wiring
> done years ago by the telco does just that.  (I'm embarrassed to say that
> own hanidwork doesn't.) However, I also noticed that a new water meter
> reading unit installed by the city water department also doesn't conform.
> They just cut into the middle of one of the existing wires.  Is this
> standard outdated or is the city not doing things quit by the book?
> Running the wire all the way from the water meter sensing unit to the
> demarc point would have involved very little extra, about 5 feet of wire
> and no cutting of existing lines.  A second question I was wondering
> about is should I bother to go back and rewire the outlet I installed?
> It's been working fine for ten years as far as I know.

If it's working fine, don't fix it. But the brochure is right on ...

Standard EIA/TIA-570, June 1991, "Residential and Light Commercial
Telecommunications Wiring Standard", recommends wiring from all
telecomunications outlets terminate on a single distribution device.
The distribution device, in turn, is connected to a jack on the
network interface device located at the demarcation point.
Alternatively, the distribution device (inside the building) is
connected to a jack on an auxiliary disconnect outlet (also inside the
building), which is then connected to the network interface device at
the demarcation point.

Daisy chain wiring of outlets is not recommended.


John Fricks
Email: [e-mail]
Nortel Inc.

------------------------------

From: Lis Angus <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Canada Number Portability
Date: 14 Jan 1996 21:46:46 GMT
Organization: Angus TeleManagement Group


There is a public process to develop an interim local numbering
portability solution in Canada by May 1996. The minutes of this process
are on line at the CRTC web site at:

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/proc_rep/telecom/w_ntce/pn9548e.htm


LIS ANGUS                       Tel: [phone] ext 221
Angus TeleManagement Group      Fax: [phone]
8 Old Kingston Road             e-mail: [e-mail]
Ajax Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7     http://www.angustel.ca

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Sudeep Bhoja)
Subject: Re: Enhanced Full Rate Vocoder
Date: 14 Jan 1996 17:45:02 -0600
Organization: WCS


In article <[e-mail]> Milind Paranjpe
<[e-mail]> writes:

> Hello all, Does anyone have information on the Enhanced Full Rate
> vocoder used in PCS-1900 in Washington DC?

Yes. The EFR vocoder was developed by Nokia (NPAG). Slight variants of
this vocoder can be seen in GSM EFR and the new IS 136 vocoder.

I think the PCS 1900 vocoder operates at a bit rate of 13 Kbps. It is an
Alegbraic CELP based algorithm. The ETSI Weighted Mops estimate on this
is somewhere around 15 MIPS.

What application are you looking at? If you know your target DSP, I may
be able to tell you the expected MIPS.


Sudeep

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (steven r kleinedler)
Subject: Re: Fridays are Free With Sprint
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: The University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 04:52:35 GMT


So, I called up Sprint to sign up for the service.

Them: So, what's the name of the business?

Me:   I'm not a business. I'm a home.

Them: So, what name do you want on the bill?

[I have been sneaking looks at the phone books of friends in other
cities and states as long as I can remember to look at their area code
and prefix pages and the like. I remember wigging out with joy when I
figured out the fact that area codes had either 0 or 1 in the middle
and big cities got 212, 213, etc when I was about 10.  You can imagine
my joy when I stumbled onto this group. Thank you, all.]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are quite welcome Steve. I'm glad
you like it. In the early days, the one in the middle meant there were
other area codes in the same state, and the zero in the middle meant
there were no other area codes in the same state. You are correct that
the short dial-pulls were assigned to large cities. New York City got
five (212), which is the least of all. Chicago (312) and Los Angeles (213)
each had six. Pittsburgh, PA (412) and Dallas, TX (214) each got seven,
while St. Louis (314) and Springfield, MA (413) got eight as did Austin,
TX (512) and Philadelphia, PA (215). Nine dial-pulls went to places
like Cleveland (216) and Minneapolis (612), Syracuse, NY (315) and
Cincinnati (513), and Milwaukee (414). I believe other than the first
three or four codes, no further attempt was made to allocate on any basis
other than as described above. Our Nation's (Drug and Violent Crime)
Capitol (202) got fourteen dial-pulls as did its neighbor Maryland (301);
but its other neighbor Virgina (703) got twenty. Sparsely populated
areas got lots of 60x, 70x, 80x and 90x codes, all with seventeen to
twenty-five or more pulls required. Lots of area codes beginning with
seven, eight or nine were assigned much later than the original bunch,
most of which tended to begin with two, three or four in the very
early days, or if they began with seven, eight or nine tended to
have 'short' third digits; i.e. one or two, maybe three so the number
of pulls sort of balanced out. 909 with twenty-eight pulls was the last
of the 'traditional' codes to be assigned, and by that time, most
people had never seen a rotary dial phone, let alone know or remember
how to operate one ... so it didn't matter.

Conversely though, in some cities it was considered very fashionable
to have a telephone number with a long dial-pull involved, thus a
big demand for numbers ending in 'thousand' or 'hundred'. In other
cases, customers complained about long pull numbers, so as often as
not numbers with 99xx as the last four digits were never assigned for
public use; they usually were phone company special lines. In other
places, short pulls were in demand, and you would find lots of business
places with numbers like x111. Repetitive digits were sought after,
and usually unavailable to the general public, ie. 1212, 1313, 1414.
If you had one of those, or something like 1234, 2345, or 3333, chances
are likely you had it for years. People with numbers like 000x usually
were charter subscribers to telco from fifty years before in manual
days when their phone number was literally '1' or '6' or whatever and
the conversion to dial forced prepending several zeros at the start
of the final part to flesh it out to seven digits. The Western Union
agent in the community always had 4321; the police always had 2121
and the firemen always had 2131, at least around here. When you had
two communities on the same phone exchange, the *other* police had
2151 and the *other* firemen had 2161. I remember once about twenty
years ago getting a phone number which ended '8947'. I called a friend
to give him my new number; on hearing it his response was 'oooh, ick'!
People liked getting numbers with a certain rythym or cadence to
them in those days. I guess they still do.  PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 15 Jan 96 15:01:53 -0800
From: TELECOM Digest Editor <[e-mail]>
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Subject: Re: Fridays are Free With Sprint


I wonder if there is something to stop a budding entrepreneur (not me,
since I have a real job) from setting up a room full of desks with
phones, switching them all to Sprint for $50 total per month,
and charging folks by the hour for "office space" which happens
to have a free worldwide phone?

Of course the office hours would have to be limited to Friday only for
a few hours so that the monthly total would not exceed $1000 per line,
unless the entrepreneur were to use a PBX with call detail capability
that he could process in near real time.  Not worth the bother, I
guess, but an interesting thought.

Just a fantasy, really.  It might be fun to have friends come over
for Friday afternoon/evening phoning parties. Or what if a hotel were
to program a couple of the lines on its PBX to use that service every
Friday for all guest long distance calls, etc?

The Sprint offer says: "certain restrictions apply", and they may have
thought to include a resale prohibition.  I'll bet someone does it
anyway, though!


PAT

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 19:27:21 EST
From: John R Levine <[e-mail]>
Subject: He's BAAAACCCKKKK !! The Return of the Slaton Thing


Hey, look what just fell into my mailbox.  It's your favorite e-mail
correspondent.

Regards,

John Levine, [e-mail], Trumansburg NY
Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies"
and Information Superhighwayman wanna-be


Content-Description: Touch the World With TELEMAIL (fwd)
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from slip-1.slip.net by ivan.iecc.com with smtp
    (Smail3.1.29.1 #11) id m0tY5Ij-001T8rC; Fri, 5 Jan 96 01:06 EST
Received: from [198.70.174.214] (chi-pm4-20.freeppp.com [198.70.174.214]) by slip-1.slip.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA22355; Thu, 4 Jan 1996 21:00:17 -0800
X-Sender: [e-mail] (Unverified)
Message-Id: <v01510106ad11ce9240f1@[198.70.174.214]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 22:19:24 +0130
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Slaton)
Subject: Touch the World With TELEMAIL


                        TeleMail Touches The World!

       INTERNET - OUT BOUND CALLING - FAX ON DEMAND - 800 SERVICE
                         CREDIT CARD PROCESSING

INTERNET - Reach all or part of 20 + Million through personal E-Mail, Web Pages
and more.  The fastest way to touch the most people - WORLD WIDE!

800 SERVICE - Instant access to more information through our custom
auto-attendent, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  All calls provide
calling number, name, address, etc. automatically.  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

FAX ON DEMAND - Callers request and receive fax data on you and your product,
electronically, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  Fax out an order form,
accept the order by phone, it's that easy.

CREDIT CARD PROCESSING - Orders placed by 800 number instantly cleared
and approved through your credit card processor or ours. Direct, electonic
deposit to your bank in 72 hours.

ATM CARD PROCESSING - Our card processor accepts ATM (DEBIT) cards, over
the phone, and your money is on it's way tonight.

           ***** 1996 1st Quarter List Qualification Special *****

  (TeleMail will send your e-mail message to people who want to hear from you!)

 Place your order before 1/10/95 to co-sponsor our list re-qualification during
  January and receive a special price AND a 60 minute calling card as a bonus!

                      CALL FOR JANUARY RATES
                   (Quantity Discounts Available)

                   TeleMail, Inc.  1-800-944-3366

Jeff Slaton
5901 J Wyoming Blvd NE
Albququerque, NM  87109


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Doesn't he *ever* learn his lesson?
Calling that 800 number produces these results: at the voicemail
menu delivered on answer, pressing '1' causes an outdial to the
number (area unknown, but not 505) 739-6127 where a recorded message
tells us the person is not at home and to leave a message. Perhaps
whoever it is will be home at another time. Pressing 3 or 4 manip-
ulates their fax machine. Pressing any other digit (0,2,5,6,7,8,9)
gets the caller transferred to the voice mailbox of one 'Larry Host'
or 'Larry Yost' or 'Larry Most' who we are told is away from his desk
or on the phone right now. The * and # may do something -- who knows?

It certainly is great that Jeff's business is doing so well he can
afford to offer a toll-free number to his customers and potential
customers. If you need to call him to discuss anything, you may not
want to tie up the phone at your home or office doing so. Probably
you'll want to call from a pay station somewhere where you can chat
for *hours* as needed to place an order with Jeff or otherwise
talk about the net and stuff like that. Please re-read the part of
his message I underlined above. Phone numbers collected on his end.

There seems to be no limit (which I can discern) to the number of
calls his nice phone system can handle at one time. I had it up on two
lines at the same time with the voicemail boxes talking to each other
at one point.

Remember, it is unlawful to harass anyone on the phone. Only call
if you have something specific to say or deliver by fax. But since
the *relevance* of the subject matter has never been of concern
to Jeff when he delivers his traffic to the net, neither should it
be of that much concern to you when you deliver your taffic to him.
One last warning: no harassment, no phreaking, no hacking, no phraud.
And be smart about where you choose to make your calls from.  PAT]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V16 #18
*****************************