TELECOM Digest     Mon, 1 Aug 94 14:19:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 343

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    ZMODEM: Is CR@CR Obsolete? (Stephen Satchell)
    SLIPP Connection Wanted (Seth Lieberman)
    Use of Call Forwarding to Avoid Toll Charges (Javad Boroumand)
    800 Number Disasters (Steve Kudlak)
    A Troubleshooting Puzzle (Jeff Stieglitz)
    Positions Available at University in New Zealand (geoff@waikato.ac.nz)
    Is This Schematic Right? (Brent Geery)
    Companies That Can Install VSAT's (Doug Gurich)
    Looking For Source of Repeaters (Glen Roberts)
    Recent Changes in Cellphone Billing (Dave O'Shea)
    Best Calling Card Rates? (Phil Calvert)
    Re: Who Makes Two Line 900Mhz Cordless Phones? (Jonathan Lundell)
    Re: Who Makes Two Line 900Mhz Cordless Phones? (draziw@netcom.com)
    Re: Who Makes Two Line 900Mhz Cordless Phones? (ted@ics.com)

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 GEnie.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. 

Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations
and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax 
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: 708-329-0571
                        Fax: 708-329-0572
  ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu **

Our archives are located at 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.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, 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.

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: ssatchell@BIX.com (ssatchell on BIX)
Subject: ZMODEM: Is CR@CR Obsolete?
Date: 1 Aug 94 16:09:26 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation


caf@omen.COM (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) wrote elsewhere:

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Original message did not appear in
the Digest; I never recieved a copy of it.  PAT]

> One of the features of ZMODEM is the protection of the sequence
> CR @ CR which was used by the recently discontinued Telenet PC
> Pursuit service.

> Perhaps it is time to remove this particular feature.

At this point I think you would be ill-advised to remove the
protection.  Granted, PC Pursuit is dead ... for now.  There's nothing
that says that there might be demand later.

If you are going to change the protocol, it needs to be aware of TIA
PN-2812.  This project defines a means for controls in-band, and has
its own escape sequences defined.  All these sequences begin with the
character decimal 25, hexidecimal 19, or Ctrl-Y.  The cellular people
have already incorporated this sequence into their standards, and
TR-30.4 has an industry ballot out to make PN-2812
ANSI/TIA/EIA-617-1994.

The good news is that the content of the sequences after the Ctrl-Y
are all graphics, not control codes.  This was to enhance the
possibility of the sequences being able to go through 7-bit networks
without running into uusual er unusual control sequences which might
have bad effects.

The in-band controls currently defined are: flow control, modem lead
signalling such as DTR, DSR, DCD, SQ, RI, and BREAK handling.  The
intent is that any channel to a modem in which out-of-band signalling
is not supported or that time relationships are not guaranteed can
support all the known required functions, including old-style '302
escape processing.

(Tidbit: PN-2812 includes two escape-in-data sequences: one for a
single occurance of Ctrl-Y, and one for a pair of occurences of
Ctrl-Y.  This was done to prevent excessive stream expansion because
of a series of Ctrl-Y characters.)


Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations, Incline Village, NV
Testing modems for magazines and industry since 1984
ssatchell@bix.com, 70007.3351@compuserve.com

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

From: j-lieberman@bio-3.bsd.uchicago.edu (Seth Lieberman)
Subject: SLIPP Connection Wanted
Organization: The University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 16:26:32 GMT


I have a slip (or PPP) question that I was hoping someone could help
me answer.  Where I attend school there is only dial in service or
direct connecitons from the lab.  If I wanted to get a slip account
how would I find out if it is offered in my area: Northfield, Minn.
It is about 45 minutes south on the twin cities but a new area code:
507. I heard mention about SLIPP nad PPP and the thought of a direct
connection even if only at 14.4 made me smile :).

I also heard some mention about a leased line where it could be hooked
up from my dorm to the computer lab and that it was a dedicated 56K
line and cost about $400 a month (hopefully I'll get some people to
share my costs).

Thanks for any help you can give me.  Please mail (or post).


Seth Lieberman   lieberms@mathcs.carleton.edu

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

From: Javad Boroumand <javad@jacks.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Use of Call Forwarding to Avoid Toll Charges
Date: 1 Aug 1994 14:46:06 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center


Is the use of Call Forwarding to avoid long distance charges illegal?

Let's say from point X to point Y is long distance.  This could either
be long distance within a Bell company "Regional Calling Area" or it
goes across LATA boundaries and involves a long distance carrier
charges.

Point Z is local to both X and Y (i.e., X-Z and Z-Y calls are local
calls).  We get Call Forwarding service for phone Z and have the
number be forwarded to phone Y.  Phone X calls Z, gets forwarded to Y
without any toll charges.

Here are our questions:

1.  Is this illegal? There is no notice on the use of Call Forwarding
anywhere in telephone company's ads, instructions, etc. specifying where
this service should not be used.

2.  Is there a technical limit in the number of times you can forward a
call?  Can the above scheme be done with multiple forwarding phones in
between origination and destination (to achieve longer distances)?

3.  Is Call Forwarding feature smart enough to realize that toll charges
are being avoided and so it would charge a toll based on initial origin
and final destination to the originator or the forwarding phones?  Of
course if this is the case, then the question of legality is irrelevant.

Any answer (especially if it know-for-sure), idea or suggestion for
further investigation is very much appreciated.  Please email me your
responds to javad@jacks.gsfc.nasa.gov


Thanks,

Javad


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is technically illegal since anything
device or scheme which is used to avoid tolls is illegal. The apparent
contradition here lies in the *intent* behind call forwarding as it was
developed by telco. The *intent* is to make it convenient for a person to
receive their calls wherever they may happen to be. The *intent* is not
to provide alternatives to the existing toll rates. Unlike DDD versus
WATS for example, or unlike measured service versus unmeasured service
where the subscriber has the option of selecting the rate he will be billed
for his call based on his own judgment as to the most economical way of
setting up the service, call forwarding through local unmeasured hops is
not intended as an alternative to WATS or DDD type billing. Therein lies
the difference. 

If it so happens, by the merest coincidence, that it is convenient for you
to receive calls intended for yourself at some alternative location and 
that location happens to be, when evaluated to the original caller a toll
charge had the original caller dialed it direct, then my belief is you are
within your rights to receive calls routed in that way. I believe however
that to deliberatly structure your calling patterns in such a way as to
*always* avoid tolls using call forwarding via local hops is in violation
of the intent of the tariff, and thus the tariff itself. 

Bear in mind also that the costs involved in establishing a permanently
forwarded number at some location in an effort to divert the call from 
toll will to a large extent negate any 'savings' you might expect otherwise.
Forget for a moment the grey area of 'call-forwarding versus toll' and
its questionable legality as an elective 'billing option' for subscribers.
Let's assume it is legal. Unless all the interim connections are untimed,
unmeasured local calls, there will be no savings, transparent or otherwise.
It is very, very rare when any two or more local calls (or for that matter
any two or more long distance calls) when their costs are added together 
are cheaper than a single call from one destination to another. If you have
to actually pay for two of the local interim connections, then those charges
are almost always greater than the 'long haul' charge had it been a single
connection from start to finish. Unless you have absolutely untimed, 'free'
local calling over a wide area, your scheme is probably doomed to fail, or
at best break even.

Now suppose you do have the *legitimate* option from telco of wide area
local unmeasured calling; not many of us do anymore, but suppose you do.
You still have some fixed expenses which have to be amortized, or justified
each month. You have the initial installation costs. You have the monthly
bill for service at the interim location, including the custom calling
feature known as call forwarding. How much will that cost in your town?
Let us say fifty dollars to install and ten dollars per month in this
example. Now you also have to include the 'cost of goodwill' of the person
upon whose premises you install the interim phone. Do you pay rent to an
answering service to hang a phone on their wall which goes ignored by them
all the time? Do you have a generous freind who lets you install it in
his house, program the forwarding then remove the instrument leaving only
the jack there?  Are you certain he won't use the phone to make unwanted
calls at your expense otherwise? If all these things work in your favor --
except telco of course, telco never works in your favor -- then you have
a first year cost of maybe $200 at minimum for service, installation and
whatnot, or about $18 per month. If you 'rent' the space for your interim
phone then add a bit (!?!) more. Now do you propose that your calls from
start to finish, had they been dialed direct in a straight-forward manner
will exceed that by any worthwhile amount?  

See my point?  Nothing comes 'free', not even unmeasured local service
as a way to avoid tolls. At bare minimum, skin and bones cost for the
permanently forwarded interim line, you need to make a certain amount of
calls each month before it rolls in your favor. Add any interim expenses
and the rollover point gets even higher. Unless you can get the cost per
minute down to under 10-12 cents then forget it, because you can get an
800 number with prices in that range, and the legality of 800 as a way
of receiving calls is unquestioned.  

Generally call-forwarding accepts one call only at a time unless you do
battle with telco to get them to change the parameters. Why?  Because 
of the *intention*. Call forwarding is *intended* as a convenient way to
have *a phone call* reach you wherever you may be ... not as an alternative
billing arrangement where a high volume of toll traffic is concerned. On
the other hand, 800 is rarely restricted in this way. Generally calls to
an 800 number are only limited by the capacity at the terminating end.
You have ten lines in rotary hunt, you can get ten calls. 

This has come up here in the Digest several times in the past. I have
always contended that there will never be a savings in cost, but then I
am biased from living in an area where we pay five cents everytime the
phone goes off hook for an outgoing local call. Others have written to
offer rebuttal, and presented, IMO (look, no 'H'; that's because I don't
give humble opinions) very peculiar traffic patterns where indeed, maybe
under some circumstances a penny or two might be saved. Overall, forget
call-forwarding as a way to chisel Ma Bell. Go with a very cheap, discounted
800 number from one of her several competitors.    PAT]

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

From: chroma@armory.com (Steve Kudlak)
Subject: 800 Number Disasters
Organization: The Armory
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 12:59:19 GMT


A friend in NYC has an 800 number. We are in the habit of conversing
at odd odd hours of the day. Recenetly a curious and irtitating
incident happened. My friend has had had this number thru SPRINT for
ages. It is easy to remember. This AM I called this number and instead
of getting my friend I got this other person. I apologized, assuming I
had missed a digit or transposed something. The second time I tried
and was much more careful and got the person again who was quite
irate. I dialed a third time to try to ascertian what number was being
pointed to. so I could have the matter corrected. I recieved a string
of expletives that would wither any right thinking person. I tried to
explain the this person that something was wrong and we should call
SPRINT and have it fixed. My friend uses his number for business, and
that it is a gross problem for him. Instead just more yelling and
screaming.

I called SPRINT and they said it was a cross-over, and they would look
into it. This didn't fix the problem at all; they just acknowleged it.
I called the AT&T repair service and lo and behold the probelm was fixed
in about five or ten minutes, about the time it took to get clothed in day 
clothes and call the number again. Anyone have any idea what causes this,
and how it is easiest to get fixed? Any way to prevent the problem in the 
future?


Have Fun,

Steve

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

From: jest@netcom.com (Jeff Stieglitz)
Subject: A Troubleshooting Puzzle
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 1994 22:03:52 GMT


I humble myself before the altar of the telecom gods.

I'm having an unusual problem that I believe to be related to routing
within Southern Bell.

Let me explain ...

    The application is rather simple -- I have 14 IBM AS/400
minicomputers across the country.  Each one has an AT&T 800 number
MasterLined on rotary into four IBM 5853 modems.  About 350 field
people dial in to these systems with IBM Thinkpads, and they transfer
about 50k of data at 2400 bps.

     It's been working fine everywhere for two years -- except in
Atlanta.

     When I started hearing complaints, I decided to check it out by
dialing into Atlanta from my home base in Los Angeles.  I transferred
a few megabytes back and forth without incident.  I did it many times.
I then called AT&T, and they checked out their end and had Southern
Bell "tone" the local lines.  It all checked out, so I dismissed the
complaints.

     Still, the users were crying.

     So, I had the modems swapped, then the cabling.  I also rearranged 
the rotary.  Even after all of this, the Atlanta locals complained
they were still receiving transmission errors, but I could get in fine
from LA.

     I was also confused by the nature of their complaints.  They said
they could download all day but they had problems with uploads.

     Eventually, some big boss calls my big boss, and I'm on a plane
to Atlanta.

     The first thing I did in hotel room is try to connect to the
Atlanta system.  It errored out on uploads.  I was scratching my head
because I knew I could upload fine from LA.  I then tried to upload
data to the systems in Boston, Cincinnati, and Los Angeles.  No
problems at all -- from my hotel room.

     The next day I went to the Atlanta office and had the same
results.  I could dial around the country, but I couldn't get a
successful transfer to the Atlanta system.

     Even stranger was the nature of the failure.  I could download
files just fine.  Uploading a numeric text file failed every time.
Uploading a file full of the letter "A" worked.

     So, I can upload to the Atlanta system from all over the country,
except Atlanta.  And I can download data from Atlanta without incident.  
But when I try to upload at the pokey rate of 2400 bps it fails, but
only for some files!

     Tracing the line on the AS/400 looks OK, but I'm using a package
called PC/Support and it uses HDLC.  Maybe the problem is timing
related.

     And yes, I am kicking myself for not bringing a protocol analyzer.
I left mine in Chicago the week before, where it's monitoring the line
to trap an unrelated problem on a Unix box.  Tracing on the AS/400
shows nothing, just that the session ends.

    I hooked up a null modem and it worked just fine.

    I wired my own jack from the wiring board, bypassing the AT&T
Definity PBX completely, and still had the problem.  I tried going
through the PBX only -- extension to extension -- and that failed too.
That had me really confused.

    At this point, I'm thinking inside wiring to the local loop, or
some kind of odd-routing that induces a subtle, cumulative
degradation.  Maybe it has to do with repeated digital to analog
conversions.

    So, telecom gods in netland, Why can I upload data from LA to
Atlanta without error, but can't from Atlanta to Atlanta?

     Any ideas?


Jeff Stieglitz     jest@netcom.com


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One thing you obviously have no control
over and have not been able to test is the route the data takes when
it leaves your premises in Atlanta on its travels to wherever it goes.
It most likely goes from your premises in Atlanta through one CO to
a toll switch and then out around the country, but a different route
when being transported locally in Atlanta. 

Are all of your complaining users in Atlanta served out of the same
CO and same trunking between themselves and where your computers are
located?  Is the hotel where you stayed while testing this out in the
same CO/trunking configuration?  Try from another hotel somewhere else
in Atlanta.  If the problem was in the local loop then why wouldn't the
users all over the country have the same problem ... they all use the
same local loop and the same wiring in Atlanta regardless. Anything that
happens should happen to *everyone* until you reach the point where
the users go on their separate ways, which would be in a phone company
central office somewhere. What if some central office in Atlanta where
all your local Atlanta users (and yourself when you were in the hotel
testing it) are situated has problems?  You might begin by finding out
the phone numbers your Atlanta users are calling from when they try to
upload. All in the same CO?  Deliberatly get yourself in a different CO
(but still local in Atlanta) and try the transfer. If it works okay
then, your trouble is definitly CO-based. I'd be willing to bet you
anything its not the CO serving your office and computer there in 
trouble but some other local CO in Atlanta which does business with
lots of your local users. The CO serving your office is fine; otherwise
it would screw up when talking to the toll switch. Its when your local
CO there hands the calls to some other local CO in Atlanta that the
trouble commences in that second CO. Wouldn't it be interesting to find
out that your complaining users all were on that CO as was the hotel
where you stayed?  <grin> ... 

Now, if you can pin that down and find what I am saying is correct about
the CO-in-common everyone there seems to hang off of, you'll want to
test at various times of day and night. Does the trouble always seem to
occur mostly at night or mostly in the day, or when?  If at night when
traffic overall is less, the CO-in-common is handing the calls to the
the CO at your office (or the other way around) time and again on the
first couple of selected trunks.  If the first or second trunk selected
between the CO's is bad, your lucky local users are always going to land
there, and always get messed up. Let's not worry about the local loop or
the internal wiring for now; if they were bad everyone would be affected.
Let's find out the phone numbers your users are on when they call the
computer and look for commonalities there first.   PAT] 

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

Date: Mon, 01 Aug 1994 11:10:14 +1200
From: GEOFF@waikato.ac.nz
Subject: Positions Available at University in New Zealand
Organization: University of Waikato


Lecturer/Senior Lecturer/Associate Professor in Computer
Science/Information Systems

Applications are invited for two positions in the Department of
Computer Science at the University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.

Outstanding candidates in all areas of Computer Science/Information
Systems will be considered, but databases and networks and
communications are of particular interest. Applicants should hold an
advanced degree in Computer Science or Information Systems and must be
committed to teaching and scholarly research.

The Department of Computer Science has a complement of 28 academic and
support staff and is one of the largest departments in the University.
Its staff teach and conduct research in both Computer Science and
Information Systems areas. There are 2500 student course enrolments,
and majors are granted in five undergraduate degrees, 40 students are
currently enrolled in graduate study at the masters and doctoral level
in the Department.

As well as large networked IBM PC and Macintosh teaching laboratories,
departmental resources include SUN workstations, SGI Indy
workstations, NeXTs, hardware and communications laboratories, a
variety of Unix servers, and access to the University's VAX cluster.
Internet access to email and networks is available.

The University of Waikato is the fastest growing of the seven
universities in New Zealand and currently has over 10,000 students.
The campus and surrounding area are very attractive, bordering a
pleasant rural district on the eastern edge of Hamilton, a modern city
of 100,000.  Climate is moderate ... the grass grows year round ... and
social activities include fishing, sailing, hiking, skiing, golf,
rugby, soccer, tennis and cricket.  In short, the lifestyle and
climate are unbeatable!

The present salary ranges are as follows:  Lecturer: $37,440 - $49,088 per
annum, Senior Lecturer: $52,000 - $67,080 per annum, Associate Professor:
$69,680 - $75,920 per annum.

Enquiries of an academic nature may be made to the Chairperson of the
Department, Dr Geoffrey Holmes, Email: geoff@waikato.ac.nz, 
telephone: 64-7-838-4528, fax: 64-7- 838-4155.  Information on the 
method of application and conditions of appointment can be obtained
from Personnel and Management Services, The University of Waikato,
Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, New Zealand, telephone 64-7-838 4003, fax:
64-7-856-0135, Email: rgtywp4@ waikato.ac.nz (via internet).  All
applications quoting reference number A94/28 received by 9 September
1994 will be considered shortly thereafter.  Applications will be
accepted until the positions are filled.

Places for appointees' children may be available in the creche run by
the Campus Creche Society (Inc).  Equal Opportunity is University policy.

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

Subject: Is This Schematic Right?
From: cntinuum!brent.geery@uplherc.upl.com (Brent Geery)
Date: 31 Jul 94 21:17:00 GMT
Organization: The Continuum - South Pasadena, CA - 818-441-2625
Reply-To: cntinuum!brent.geery@uplherc.upl.com (Brent Geery)


I am planning on connecting my phone line to my modem line at home
with the device below.  This will allow me to call my home line #1 and
get a dial tone and call out through my modem line.  This allows me to
call my local BBS, ect., even when they would not be local for the
phone that I'm calling in from.  (PS: As both lines are mine, there is
nothing wrong with this.)

I found a file with a schematic of a device that looks like it will
work fine for my needs, the only thing is I can't make heads or tails
of it.  Below is the schematic as it is in the file can someone
re-write it so I can understand it, and check for any errors?:

2 10K OHM Resistors
3 1.4K OHM Resistors
2 2N3904 Transistors
2 Photocells
2 Red LEDs (the more light the better)[jumbo, super brights? other colors?]
Project Box that will not let light in
red [and red stripped] and green [and green stripped] wire

1
:-PHOTOCELL--:
:            :
:            :BASE
:    1     TTTTT                  NOTE: GREEN1, GREEN2, RED1,RED2
:  +LED-   TRANSISTOR                   are the points where the
:          TTTTT                        phone lines are connected.
:           : :
:  -I(--    : :COLLECTOR
RED1--<     >:--: :-------:-----GREEN2
-I(-- :            ----------:   <---Why the hell is this like this.
:                      :       This is also the part I am most
2    :-/+/+/-/+/+/-/+/+/-/+/+/      confused about how it's hooked
LED     10K    10K   1.4K 1.4K       up.  It's not clear what they
RESISTORES              mean.

2
-PHOTOCELL-----------------
:                         :
:BASE                     :
TTTTT                       :
TRANSISTOR                  :
TTTTT                       :
: :EMITTER                 :
GREEN1- --------------------------RED2
:   :
/+/+/
1.4K

Light from LED #1 must shine directly on the photocell #1.  The one I
made needed the top of the LEDs to touch the photocell for it to work.
The same applies to PHOTOCELL #2 and LED #2.  [Maybe 'span the gap'
between the LED and the photocell with amuminum foil and then wrap
both together with electrical tape.]  The 1.4K resistor[s(?)] is
veriable.

The second part may be skipped if you choose.  If the second part is
skipped, it will still work but if someone picks the phone up they
will hear a faint dial tone in the background.

Now that you have built it, take two green wires of the same length
strip the ends, twist two ends together and connect them to green1 and
place a peice of tape on it with "LINE #1" writing on it.  Continue
the process with red1 only use red wire.  Repeat with red2 and green2
but change to line #2.  

Well that's it.  I hope you can help me understand it!  Thank you.


         The Continuum   -*-    South Pasadena, California 
  (818) 441-2625 for 9600 and faster (818) 799-9633 for 2400 and slower

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

Date: Mon, 1 Aug 94 08:44:03 CST
From: Doug_Gurich@fcircus.sat.tx.us (Doug Gurich)
Subject: Companies That Can Install VSAT's


We are looking for companies that have the authority and capability to
install VSAT's in various international locations.  We would like to
initiate talks with such companies regarding future business
opportunities.  Our firm, GlobalCom International, is a systems
integrator offering a wide variety of telecommunications services to
the commerical and government sectors.

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

From: glr@ripco.com (Glen Roberts)
Subject: Looking For a Source of Repeaters
Organization: RCI, Chicago, IL
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 15:53:39 GMT


I'm looking for a source for 24V4 repeaters.


Glen L. Roberts, glr@rci.ripco.com   ph: (708) 838-4478

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

From: dos@spam.wdns.wiltel.com (Dave O'Shea)
Subject: Recent Changes in Cellphone Billing
Date: 1 Aug 1994 15:12:03 GMT
Organization: WilTel
Reply-To: dave_oshea@wiltel.com


I've noticed that several of the carriers in this area (Metro NY/NJ)
seem to be eliminating daily roaming charges on a nationwide basis.
I'm happy to see this happen -- no more of the "if I push 'send', is it
gonna cost me ten bucks?" worries.

Anyone know if this change is taking place on a more widespread scale,
and whether it's just a change in marketing, or a result of some
technological change? My understanding was that many of the carriers
were actually sending each other tapes full of roamer billing
information -- if this changed, it could explain the move in billing.

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

From: calvert@eos.ncsu.edu (Phil Calvert)
Subject: Best Calling Card Rates?
Date: 31 Jul 1994 18:15:33 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway


A few months ago I saw something on the net about a calling card
called the "Orange Card".  It supposedly has no surchage and fairly
reasonable rates.  Does it still exist?  If so, how can I obtain info.
on how to get one?  I'd also like to hear about any other calling
cards with no surcharge and exceptionally good rates.  Please post any
info. directly to the newsgroup, as I'm sure others will also be
interested.  


Thanks,
 
Phil Calvert    calvert@eos.ncsu.edu


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I used to be a sales representative for
Orange Card, but I pretty much quit doing it and alot of the other
telecom sidelines I had. Orange isn't a bad deal, but since I got my
800 number with outdial privileges on it for 15 cents per minute I have
used that instead. That's an even better deal.   PAT]

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

From: jlundell@opus.com (Jonathan Lundell)
Subject: Re: Who Makes Two Line 900Mhz Cordless Phones?
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 1994 03:02:00 GMT


In article <telecom14.339.8@eecs.nwu.edu>, howard.ball@execnet.com (Howard
Ball) wrote:

> I am seeking a list of manufacturers of TWO-LINE 900Mhz cordless
> phones.

> The only such phone I've found so far is from Hello Direct of San
> Jose, CA which offers the Tropez Platinum. (I never heard of Tropez).

> Does anyone know of any others?

I don't know directly, but I've noticed that Panasonic is pretty
active with two-line phones, answering machines, and non-900 cordless
phones.


Jonathan Lundell  jlundell@opus.com

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

From: draziw@netcom.com (Ryan)
Subject: Re: Who Makes Two Line 900Mhz Cordless Phones?
Organization: Netcom
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 02:25:09 GMT


Howard Ball (howard.ball@execnet.com) wrote:

> I am seeking a list of manufacturers of TWO-LINE 900Mhz cordless
> phones.

> The only such phone I've found so far is from Hello Direct of San
> Jose, CA which offers the Tropez Platinum. (I never heard of Tropez).

Uniden makes one.  It's the "Uniden 9200 Cordless Extend-A-Phone".


Ryan

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

Subject: Re: Who Makes Two Line 900Mhz Cordless Phones?
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 94 11:46:27 -0400
From: ted@ics.com


> Does anyone know of any others?

Uniden EXP9200.  I think it was $379 at Comp USA.

Comp USA is discontinuing their phone line (no pun intended) and had
some pretty good closeout deals on phones.  Quantities were limited.

I bought a Bell South 756BK for $99 but I had to have it shipped from
Rhode Island to my home in MA.  The Panasonic 3980 was $139, also a
very good price.  Both of these are two line cordless, not 900MHz.


Ted

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #343
******************************
