Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/recent.single.issues/V16_#3

Internet Message Format | 1996-01-03 | 31KB

From [e-mail]  Wed Jan  3 21:05:55 1996
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id VAA13536; Wed, 3 Jan 1996 21:05:55 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 21:05:55 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #3

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 3 Jan 96 21:06:00 EST    Volume 16 : Issue 3

Inside This Issue:                        Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    CompuServe and Germany (John R. Covert)
    Re: Compuserve Censors USENET in Europe (Ross E. Mitchell)
    US West, Regulators and Quality of Service (Peter Marshall)
    Re: New Canadian Telco Websites (Mark J. Cuccia)
    Re: Angst and Awe on the Internet (George Gilder)
    60Hz Buzz on Phone Line and Modem Problems (Doug Rudoff)
    RBOC Interconnection Rates (Jonathan McHale)
    Re: "PCS Faces Rough Road" (Sudeepto Roy)
    Re: "PCS Faces Rough Road" (Eric Valentine)
    Re: "PCS Faces Rough Road" (George Gilder)
    Re: *66 Works on Ticketmaster Type Numbers? (Eric Valentine)

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: Wed, 3 Jan 96 17:29:34 EST
From: John R. Covert <[e-mail]>
Subject: CompuServe and Germany


This is supposedly the list of what CompuServe shut down in response to
the Munich State Prosecutor's office:

      66 alt.binaries.* groups
      alt.homosexual
      2 alt.magick.sex[.*] groups
      alt.motss.bisexual
      alt.politics.sex
      2 alt.recovery.* groups
      alt.religion.sexuality
      130 alt.sex[.*] groups
      alt.sexy.bald.captains
      alt.stories.erotic
      alt.support.disabled.sexuality
      alt.tv.tiny-toon.sex
      3 clari.* groups pertaining to sex and lbg news
      de.sex
      de.talk.sex
      es.alt.sexo
      2 fido.* groups with "sex" in their names
      6 fido7.* groups with "sex" in their names
      15 gay-net.* groups
      rec.arts.erotica
      shamash.gayjews
      slo.sex
      soc.support.youth.gay-lesbian-bi
      2 t-netz.sex groups
      ucb.erotica.sensual
      uw.alt.sex.*
      zer.t-netz.sex

I cannot verify the accuracy of this list; it's interesting that
alt.revisionism is not on the list, but might be missing because the
organization which provided this list wasn't interested in that portion
of the problem.

Today the German government is denying ordering that these newsgroups be
shut down or threatening prosecution (even though they had earlier raided
the CompuServe offices in Munich).

However, they admit that they told CompuServe that German law required
them to monitor the content of the information provided by their on-line
service to eliminate anything related to child pornography, revisionism
about the holocaust, or other neo-Nazi activity; CompuServe insists that
they are not responsible for content and had no choice but to shut down
the groups, since they don't have the resources to do the monitoring.

They shut them down world-wide, because they don't, at this time, have
the technical means to deny access to a portion of their offerings to
subscribers only in Germany.

Of course, there are hundreds of other internet providers in Germany which
still (at the moment) provide access to all of these groups.  This access
may or may not be by storing the text of the groups on servers owned by
those providers, and that may be the key difference.


/john


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: John provided a relatively 'cleaned-up'
version of the list of newsgroup names. I received another version of
the list with all sixty-six varieties (like the ketsup people, I guess)
of the alt.binaries.* and all 130 of the alt.sex.* groups mentioned
above listed by complete name. I am not a prude, God knows I am not a
prude, and I think you know I am not a prude ... but that complete
listing was rather embarassing, and I frankly would not have printed
it here. My thanks to John for summarizing it all much more 'neatly'
above. If you wish to see the complete list of verbotin newsgroups,
check out a couple other e-journals on the net over the past couple
of days. A couple of them eagerly ran the entire list of names, I
guess to defiantly show how open-minded and liberal and tolerant they
are -- or perhaps just how naughty they can be. All of course
were accompanied by the usual 'censorship' and First Amendment arg-
uments.

Amazing isn't it as Tom Lehrer, the Harvard mathemetician turned comic
noted in some of his performances, "the people who enjoy seeing smut
never will admit that they like it and enjoy seeing it and reading it ...
they always couch it in First Amendment theories ... always in a sort
of third person removed approach. They'll never admit to their own
prurient interests in the subject matter, preferring instead to blame
all the problems on the First Amendment, although they don't quite
phrase it that way either."

Just think how stimulating and intellectually honest things would be
if the people who are making the biggest fusses about Compuserve and
the net right now would just openly say 'I like reading and posting
to those groups', or 'I like having those groups because seeing others
with interests like mine help validate my own behavior'. But oh no ...
the First Amendment has to take still another beating.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ross E Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Compuserve Censors USENET in Europe
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 16:15:46 GMT


Recently the TELECOM Digest Editor wrote in response to Jean B Sarrazin's
note complaining about Compuserve's "censoring" of USENET groups:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are confused. You are having a
> knee-jerk reaction of your own. First, let us understand the correct
> use of the term 'censorship'. By definition, only the government can
> censor soemone. Compuserve is not the government. 'Censorship' is
> when the government physically stops you from speaking or writing on
> whatever topics you wish.

With all due respect to PAT, I know of no source which limits the meaning
of censorship to government-imposed censorship.  In fact, the film and
television industries have long histories of self-imposed censorship.
Certainly some of us remember the "network censors" of the early days of
television.

Further, the word censor is defined in The American Heritage Dictionary
as simply "A person authorized to examine books, films, or other
material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally,
politically, or otherwise objectionable."  Censorship itself is defined as
"The act, process, or practice of censoring."

So while we might agree or disagree that Compuserve's "removal of
objectionable" material (i.e. censorship) is ill-advised, I believe it
misses the point to argue that this is not a form of censorship at all.


Ross Mitchell


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your own definition agrees with *me* !
"A person who is authorized to examine ... and remove ..." Now, what
is the *only* entitity in a position to do that to whom we as citizens
have little or no recourse?  Can you spell G_O_V_E_R_N_M_E_N_T ?

The First Amendment addresses what the *government* may and may not do.
It says nothing about how individuals and companies may choose to
interact with one another. The entire Bill of Rights does not protect
individuals from each other; it protects us from the *goverment*. How
effective is any attempt at censorship other than the government
variety?

To put it another way, there are no laws or consitutional provisions
against individuals and private organizations imposing *passive* forms
of censorship on each other. While I can be and am forbidden to come
to your home and take away your printing machinery, the prohibition
is against the theft of your property or an assault upon your person.
If I steal your computer, I am charged with theft; not with the
resulting censorship imposed on you until you obtain a new computer.
On the other hand, if I leave you alone and do not molest you or
remove your methods of communication **but simply refuse to help you
propogate your communication for reasons of my own** then no laws
have been broken.

You cannot use the word 'censor' with the loose definition you presented.
When you do, you cheapen its currency. All last year on the net, the
term was 'child porn', and it got used and abused to the point it no
longer has any shock value at all. Is the word for this year around
here going to be 'censor'?  Try it and see if in six months or a year
anyone cares one way or the other. Do not ascribe individuals and
private organizations making conscious choices in how they interact
(or refuse to interact) with each other as 'censorship'. It isn't so.
It only becomes censorship when Compuserve removes all the newsgroups
and the government responds by saying you *must* subscribe to CIS.  PAT]

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

From: Peter Marshall <[e-mail]>
Subject: US West, Regulators and Quality of Service
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 18:39:36 GMT


Forwarded FYI to the Digest:


---------- Forwarded message ----------

  REGULATORS CHARGE U S WEST "STONEWALL"

  U S West Communications tried to "stonewall" official efforts to
address its eroding customer service, according to regulators in its
home territory.

  The U S West Regional Oversight Committee (ROC) said the telco's
plans were contained in an internal memo instructing company
representatives attending an ROC meeting in October not to give
regulators a reason to "justify their existence."

  The ROC consists of regulators from throughout U S West's 14-state
service area.

  Joan Smith, an Oregon regulator and former ROC chairwoman, said the
memo reinforced the atmosphere of suspicion between U S West and
regulators.

  "The idea was not to put anything in writing, because if they gave
us an inch, we'd take a mile," Smith said. "I guess they think that we
[regulators] have horns. Well, we can. But then, so can they."

  Regulators called the document a public relations black eye for U S
West, which is already under fire for its inability to provide prompt
primary and secondary phone service.

  In the Oct. 19 memo, U S West vice president Laura Ford said company
representatives should push for internal measurement of customer
service performance, rather than accept uniform regulations drafted by
the committee.

  Ford urged the three U S West officials at the ROC meeting to take a
"cordial but firm" approach. She emphasized that the regulators not be
given "the impression that they should be measuring our service
quality," or that they should "be micromanaging our business."

  U S West was provided a copy of the proposed ROC standards months in
advance of the October meeting. However, the company did not offer a
written response because it feared that "they [ROC members] might well
have their backs up and be loaded for bear by the time we meet with
them," according to the Ford memo.

  ROC members discovered the memo when one of the U S West officials
left it behind after one of the meetings.

  U S West officials said the memo's content had "been blown out of
proportion," but defended the premise that consumer reaction is the
best indicator of how the company is performing.

  "Obviously, we're not proud that the memo is out there," said U S
West corporate spokesman Dave Banks. "But its overriding message is
right. We want our customers to set our customer service standards,
because if we don't perform, sooner or later, they're going to walk
when they have the opportunity."

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 15:31:55 CST
From: Mark J Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Canadian Telco Websites


On Wed, 3 Jan 1996, Will Macdonald wrote:

> Aren't most on http://www.stentor.ca/  ?

> I'm from AGT, our parent company being is at: http://www.telus.com/

http://www.stentor.ca has a clickable map of Canada along with a list of
hypertext clickable lines of the Stentor members and two associate
members (Northwestel & GTE's Quebec Telephone).

Originally, clicking on any of these Stentor member telcos brought you to
a brief description of that company, the brief description being located
within Stentor's website/server.

I've only had access to the Internet since April, and I discovered
Stentor's site at that time. At that time, most Stentor member telcos had
only brief descriptions within Stentor's site, which could be clicked
away from Stentor's map page, while Bell Canada seemed to be the only
Canadian telco with a developed Website of their own, which could be
clicked away (linked from) Stenotr's map/list at their webpage.

Since April, the other telcos of Stentor one-by-one set up webpages of
their own, which were hypertext linked from Stentor's map/list.

After Northwestel began their own webpage sometime in September, only
Newfoundland & Prince Edward Island seemed to be the only Stentor member
telcos without webpages of their own- or at least telcos without webpages
that were not (yet) hypertext linked to Stentor's webpage map.

I did a `netsearch' on Newfoundland and came across their own webpage,
which had not (yet) been linked to Stentor's map. (at least not in the
past few days). I couldn't find anything for (Prince Edward) Island Tel.
Co. when I was `surfing/searching'.

I also came across Telebec & Northern Telephone with webpages of their
own. These two companies are held by BCE (also the parent company of Bell
Canada & holds either the company itself or shares of the parent
companies of: Northwestel, Newfoundland Tel, NB Tel, MT&T, and (PE)
Island Telco- which is also held in part by MT&T). Telebec & Northern Tel
are not members or associates of Stentor on their own. Neither is a
member of CITA- the Canadian Independent Telephone Association. But each
is a member of their respective provincial independent tel. associations-
Northern Telephone is a member of OTA- the Ontario Telephone Association,
while Telebec is a member of ACTQ- the letters are for words in French,
but I'll give the basic English here- Association of Quebec Telephone
Companies.

BTW, (GTE) Quebec Telephone is an *associate* member of Stentor. It is
*not* a member of CITA, but it *is* a member of ACTQ. Northwestel *used*
to be part of CN Telecommunications until about 1988. Back then, it was a
member of CITA, until it was taken over by BCE (Bell Canada Enterprises),
and thus became an *associate* member of Stentor (Telecom Canada).

Edmonton AB (EdTel) was a Canadian `independent' telco (and a member of
CITA), but it was taken over by AGT sometime around March 1995. AGT's
holding company purchased it from the City of Edmonton. (EdTel was
municipally owned).

I'm still waiting to see when Ontario Northland Communications gets a
webpage. It is a member of CITA, but not of OTA. When I was looking at
Northern Telephones webpages, it was stated that toll services in
northeastern Ontario were provided by the *provincially* owned Ontario
Northland Transportation Commission. NT's service area `seems' as if it
had toll switching/transmission services of its own- it has a number of
exchanges and Central Office codes in central northeastern Ontario.
Ontario Northland Communications has only a handful of local exchanges &
NXX codes just north of and just south of NT's exchange operating
territory. In some old CITA publications I have, it is stated that Ontario
Northland Communications has some Class-4 (and even a Class-3)
toll/tandem switches. I would guess that Ontario Northland Communications
is part of the provincially owned Ontario Northland Transportation
Commission. Maybe Nigel Allen or Dave Leibold could shed some more light
on this.


MARK J. CUCCIA   PHONE/WRITE/WIRE:     HOME:  (USA)    Tel: CHestnut 1-2497
WORK: [e-mail] |4710 Wright Road| ([phone])
Tel:UNiversity 5-5954([phone])|New Orleans 28  |fwds on no-answr to
Fax:UNiversity 5-5917([phone])|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jan 1996 12:16:28 -0600
From: george gilder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Angst and Awe on the Internet


[e-mail] (Robert Jacobson) responded to my article
which appeared here over the New Year's holiday.

> Seems to me Mr. Gilder has his demons wrong.  I haven't noticed a lot of
> "left-wing Luddites" or "media Marxists" going full out to discredit the
> Net.

That's because you are not on the pub lists for new book releases.  I
have received at least 20 books in the last six months making
ridiculous arguments that the net widens gaps between the rich and
poor, the info rich and info poor, corporate monopolies and consumer
rights, that the net invades privacy, pollutes culture, promotes
isolation, emits carcinogenic rays, and destroys the sense of
community fostered by TV. The endless leftist fears of monopoly,
concentration, conglomeration offer new pretexts for the very
government regulation that can actually kill the net.

The fact is that the net is the enemy of all monopolies, hierarchies,
pyramids and power grids of the existing establishment.  By attacking
the Net, the left allies itself with the old establishments of TV and
telephony.  The old dinosaurs will continue to copulate, as we see
today, but the overall impact of the net is to flatten the landscape,
promote equality, and multiply entrepreneurial opportunities.  What
the left fears is that the net will be too effective in opening
opportunities for the poor around the world (bringing a billion Asians
into the middle class in ten years), and thus will threaten the cozy
nooks and niches of protected and overregulated welfare states of the
West.

> On the other hand, it looks to this humble observer that it's the media
> magnates and the far-right crazies who run this Congress, who [promote]
> consolidation, concentration, and censorship.

Yes, there are conservatives who have proposed imprudent indecency
rules, but Gingrich and Rick White are on their case, and the courts
are extremely unlikely to uphold any new restrictions.  However, the
fears of corporate consolidation and concentration that you voice have
led to a Telecom bill that gives the FCC 80 new regulatory functions
relating to the net.  The law of the telecosm suggests that traffic
flows to the least regulated arena.  If the left has its way, the
Internet will be centered in Asia.


Best,

gg

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

From: [e-mail] (Doug Rudoff)
Subject: 60Hz Buzz on Phone Line and Modem Problems
Date: 3 Jan 1996 09:14:11 GMT
Organization: :noitazinagrO


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?


Many thanks.

Doug Rudoff    [e-mail]     Seattle, WA

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 22:14:29 +0900
From: [e-mail] (Jonathan McHale)
Subject: RBOC Interconnection Rates


Would anyone know where to point me to for information on
interconnection access rates RBOC's charge IX's (and others, if
available -- e.g. cell operators), and the methods the FCC and State
commissions use to determine fairness of such rates?  I am studying
the evolution of interconnection rules in Japan, and it would be
useful to see what we do as a point of reference.


Thanks,

Jonathan McHale    Tokyo

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

From: [e-mail] (sroy)
Subject: Re: "PCS Faces Rough Road"
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 1996 22:50:06 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm Incorporated


In article <[e-mail]>, Rob Hickey
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> 1)  PCS phones cannot compete with cellular phones on price since they are
> practically giving away cell phones;

Wonder what prompted the author to make this comment. The "free"
cellular phones are really heavily subsidized ones which come with a
long term (e.g. 3 yr.) service contract. Why wouldn't the same be
applicable to PCS?

> 2)  PCS air time cannot compete with cellular air time charges since most
> cellular companies are not charging on evenings and weekends;

With the use of emerging digital technologies (CDMA, TDMA etc.), airtime
charges should actually be cheaper than cellular phones. Inherrently,
these technologies offer higher subscriber capacities.

> 3)  PCS phones cannot be practically any more portable than the latest
> cell phones;

Somewhat untrue, I guess. In general PCS phones are more compact and
handier than their cellular counterparts -- though these days 'tis
difficult to spot much of a difference. Recently at a trade show I
noticed a tiny PCS (TDMA) phone from a Japanese manufacturer that
would fit the palm.

> 4)  PCS phones will not work in moving vehicles.

Again, wonder why the author would say this.

In general, the way I understand it, there's not a vast difference
between PCS and digital cellular (except for frequencies,
technologies, network topologies to a certain extent etc.).

Please post your comments.


Thanks,

Sudeepto Roy

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

From: [e-mail] (Eric Valentine)
Subject: Re: "PCS Faces Rough Road"
Date: 03 Jan 1996 21:16:52 GMT
Organization: Ericsson North America Inc.
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article [e-mail], Rob Hickey <[e-mail]> writes:

I assume by PCS you mean the PCS that is being licensed around 1.9 Ghz.
If so, I'll take a crack at it.

> 1)  PCS phones cannot compete with cellular phones on price since they are
> practically giving away cell phones;

They aren't making money on the phones. Sales of cellular and PCS phones
are both heavily subsidized. But depending on the economies of scale
(e.g based on technology choice etc.) the subsidies may or may not be
smaller for PCS phones. The other thing to consider is the feature level
of the phones. Same argument as for PCs: if today's PCs are five times
faster than ones at the same cost a few years, can you say today's are
cheaper? I think so. How about a PCS phone that support Short Message
Service or more advanced data services?

> 2)  PCS air time cannot compete with cellular air time charges since most
> cellular companies are not charging on evenings and weekends;

Evenings and weekends are not where the cellular companies make their
money.  That free time is an unused resource and they will be happy to
give it away in exchange for monthly subscription and occasional
roaming fees. The battleground will be 1) for high end users that use
their cell phones a lot during the day and 2) residential wireline
replacement markets. For case 2) we should remember that the local
phone companies don't charge for airtime either, and they make money.
For case 1), you want to provide more services like voice/short
message/voice mail packages. Then the high-end guys use their phones a
lot more during the day.

> 3)  PCS phones cannot be practically any more portable than the latest
> cell phones;

Yes and no. Portability is not just size, it is how long you can use
it, and where. Consider battery life. Consider security problems with
the legacy cellular systems that can often make it a pain in the ass
to use anywhere outside your home service area. A more modern system
doesn't have those problems.

> 4)  PCS phones will not work in moving vehicles.

Wrong. He must be talking about cordless phones or maybe field trials
for some of the CDMA systems. There is no inherent problem with using
PCS 1900 in a moving vehicle unless you try something silly like
pico-cells along an expressway, but that will hose an AMPS system too,
just from trying to support the handovers. One version of PCS at 1900
is GSM-based and upbanded from 900.  It has been working in vehicles
for some time now quite nicely, thank you.  The same will be true some
day for CDMA based systems.

> Mr. Rowan questions why the PCS industry would spend billions in
> infrastructure to duplicate services that already exist.

Because they think they can make a lot of money. The cellular
operators made a ton of money and there is no reason to think that the
market won't support at least a few more big players (and a lot of
small ones in markets that are too small to excite the big guys. Not
everyone will get rich. Not nearly. But if you look at where the US is
on the cellular penetration curve (still climbing fast) and consider
even the possibility of starting to tap into the residential market
(think about the synergies with companies like Sprint that could blow
off access charges.)

> Is there merit to these arguments, and do the same conditions apply in
> the United States (given that millions have already been spent on
> licenses)?

There is merit in the argument that the cellular operators will not
all be killed off by PCS. They have a head-start and didn't have to
cough up billions of bucks for licenses. Now they will just have to be
more responsive and competitive to try to hang on to their market
share.


Eric Valentine
Ericsson Radio Systems

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jan 1996 11:38:22 -0600
From: george gilder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "PCS Faces Rough Road"


> cellular technology will not be quickly missplaced for the following
> reasons: 1) they are practically giving away cell phones; 2) cellular
> companies are not charging on evenings and weekends; 3) PCS phones
> cannot be practically any more portable than the latest cell
> phones; 4) PCS phones will not work in moving vehicles.

PCS is not a competitor for cellular; it is a new local loop
technology, digital from the gitgo, that offers voice, internet
access, mobility, and backhaul over the existing cableTV plant.  Using
CDMA, PCS will offer high security and bandwidth on demand as well. If
the digital acoustics are superior to wireline, it will cut deeply
into existing wireline markets.On the basis of their British
experience, USWest estimates that they will lose some 30 percent of
their market to cable based PCS. PCS will be complementary to
cellular; you plug the same handset into your car system for vehicular
usage.


George Gilder

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

From: [e-mail] (Eric Valentine)
Subject: Re: *66 Works on Ticketmaster Type Numbers?
Date: 03 Jan 1996 20:27:10 GMT
Organization: Ericsson North America Inc.
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Ron Elkayam) writes:

> On Tue, 26 Dec 95 00:02:36 EST, Bill Rubin ([e-mail]) posted:

>> But if  it will actually work  in these situations, I might actually
>> consider using it!

> It's pointless for heavily-used busy numbers.  By the time you get the
> ringing, and pick up the phone, the desired line is busy again (and
> you'll be told to hang up and wait some more).  It's not as if it
> reserves you the right to be the next caller (it doesn't).

There is an option specified for Automatic Callback that will allow
the possibility of the calling line to be "reserved" for the
subscriber that ordered the callback. It is problematic when the
callback request is queued against a PABX or hunt group since you
obviously can't reserve *all* lines going into the PABX. *If* we ever
get the function that allows you to receive the number where your call
finally ended up (assuming it is a single line, as may be the case for
a hunt group) you should be able to order callback against *that*
line. Of course, callback queue space is limited and everyone else
will figure out the same trick. If you have CLASS ACB, you might try a
couple of the numbers above a group number, since they are often
allocated in sequence.  If it turns out to be the right place, you
should have a shot at queuing towards that *one* number and, if the
telco has the option turned on, being able to reserve the line for
your incoming call. A lot of ifs ...


Eric Valentine
Ericsson Radio Systems

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

End of TELECOM Digest V16 #3
****************************