TELECOM Digest     Mon, 26 Sep 94 14:03:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue
376
 
Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. 
Townson
 
     Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (John R 
Levine)
     Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (Thor 
Lancelot
Simon)
     Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (Glen 
Ecklund)
     Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (Robert 
Koskovich)
     Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (Dave 
Niebuhr)
     Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (Barry 
Margolin)
     Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (Carl 
Moore)
     Re: Yet Another NYNEX Blunder (Carl Oppedahl)
     Re: Yet Another NYNEX Blunder (Wes Leatherock)
     Re: Yet Another NYNEX Blunder (Paul Robinson)
     Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice (Stephen Satchell)
     Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice (Bob Smith)
     Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice (Tom Limoncelli)
     Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice (B. Jones)
     Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice (John Dean)
     AT&T Lying, TV a Fake and Other Slander (John J. Butz)
     Re: True Voice ... True Difference? (Paul R. Paradiso)
     Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice (Christian Weisgerber)
 
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 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 94 12:16 EDT
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine)
Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls
Organization: I.E.C.C., Cambridge, Mass.
 
 
> That luxury, of never having the same prefix in two ajoining area
> codes, had to be eliminated by sometime in the 1970's. So, there was
> another use for '1' on the front end. ...
 
Amazingly, in New Jersey, Land of Perfect Dialing, they still manage
to protect prefixes so that all in-state local calls can be dialed
with seven digits, even across 609/908/201 boundaries.  Local calls
into Pennsylvania and New York require eleven digits, though there are 
a
lot fewer of those than there are 201/908 and 908/609.
 
Of course, all calls within your NPA can be dialed either with seven
digits or with eleven, regardless of whether they're local, intra-LATA
toll, or inter-LATA toll.  At my beach cottage in Ocean County, which
is in what I believe is the only county in the U.S. that straddles
three separate LATAs, if we had to remember 1+ for toll, the phone
would be unusable.
 
 
Regards,
 
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, 1037498@mcimail.com
Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies"
 
------------------------------
 
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls
Date: 26 Sep 1994 12:36:24 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC
 
 
In article <telecom14.372.11@eecs.nwu.edu>, MUSEUMS <museums@aol.com> 
wrote:
 
> What is weird is that on Long Island, area code 516, they still 
don't
> dial 1's for anything. I guess they can dial 800-xxx-xxxx or area
> code-xxx-xxxx. I guess this means they don't have any NPA's as
> prefixes, or there is special software.
 
That was true for our entire LATA except NYC itself (Long Island,
Westchester, and Putnam counties) until this morning.
 
As of this morning, 1+ is required for calls to other area codes, even
within the LATA, at least at my switch. (Tuckahoe CO in Westchester)
The switch foreman says this will be a LATA-wide change, though he
doesn't know if all the other switches cut over today like mine did.
 
Broke a lot of my dial scripts, it did ...
 
 
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@panix.COM
 
------------------------------
 
From: glen@cs.wisc.edu (Glen Ecklund)
Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls
Date: 26 Sep 1994 10:33:14 GMT
Organization: University of WI, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.
 
 
oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes:
 
> In <telecom14.367.4@eecs.nwu.edu> Sanjiv Narayan 
<narayan@thoth.ICS.UCI.
> EDU> writes:
 
>> I have noticed a strange thing here since I became a NYNEX customer 
in
>> Marlboro, MA. They have a local calling area (approximatly five 
mile
>> radius) within which I can place unlimited calls for a flat charge.
 
>> However if I call a number outside my local calling area (but still 
**
>> within ** my 508 area-code), a recording asks you to redial with a 
'1'
>> prefixed before the seven-digit number I am calling.
 
>> Here's my question: If the NYNEX switching equipment is smart 
enough
>> to figure out that I need to dial a '1', why does it not go ahead 
and
>> complete the call anyway. I am willing to pay for the call 
regardless
>> of whether I redial with a '1' prefix or they complete it for me,
>> right !!?
 
> The reason is simple.  Right now the system is able to figure it
> out.  But there will be some future time when the system will not be
> able to, and the "1" will be quite necessary.  The goal is to change
> your behavior between now and then.
 
> The reason the system won't be able to figure it out someday is a
> function of all those phone numbers that start with area codes, etc.
 
Nope.  The reason is: 1 means "long distance."  OK, you are willing to
pay for the call, but if I make the call I want to know whether it is
long distance.  This will change soon, and 1 + 7D will no longer be
allowed.  It will change to either 1 + 10D, or just 7D.  1 will mean
"area code (or other special code) follows."
 
 
Glen Ecklund     glen@cs.wisc.edu   (608) 262-1318 Office, 262-1204 
Dept.
Sec'y
Department of Computer Sciences        1210 W. Dayton St., Room 3355
University of Wisconsin, Madison       Madison, Wis. 53706  U.S.A.
 
------------------------------
 
From: kosko@iii.net (Robert Koskovich)
Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls
Date: 26 Sep 1994 18:16:37 -0400
Organization: intuitive information, inc.
 
 
Sanjiv Narayan (narayan@thoth.ICS.UCI.EDU) wrote:
 
> It becomes very cumbersome when you have to redial the number with 
the
> '1' prefixed.
 
It'll become all that much more cumbersome when, on October 15, you're
required to dial "1-508" to place toll calls within your area code.
(You obviously haven't gotten NYNEX's bill stuffer yet.)
 
 
Bob Koskovich   Matick, MA
 
------------------------------
 
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 7:42:54 EDT
From: Dave Niebuhr <NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV>
Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls
 
 
In TELECOM Digest V14 #372 museums@aol.com (MUSEUMS) Richard writes:
 
> What is weird is that on Long Island, area code 516, they still 
don't
> dial 1's for anything. I guess they can dial 800-xxx-xxxx or area
> code-xxx-xxxx. I guess this means they don't have any NPA's as
> prefixes, or there is special software.
 
As of today, Sept. 24, 1994, Area Code 516 is 1+10D for anything other
than 516 and 7D for anything inside it.
 
 
Dave Niebuhr      Internet: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov
                             niebuhr@bnlcl6.bnl.gov (preferred)
                             niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Senior Technical Specialist, Scientific Computing Facility
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  1+(516) 282-3093
                                           FAX   1+(516) 282-7688
 
------------------------------
 
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@nic.near.net>
Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls
Date: 26 Sep 1994 12:18:31 -0400
Organization: NEARnet, Cambridge, MA
 
 
In article <telecom14.369.3@eecs.nwu.edu> varney@uscbu.ih.att.com 
writes:
 
> The MA PUC believes most customers want to use "1+" as an indication
> of "I know I am making a non-free call".
 
Unfortunately, they don't apply this rule consistently.  Last month I
had a $470 NYNEX phone bill, and didn't dial 1+ for any of those
calls.
 
The reason is that NYNEX in Massachusetts has various forms of flat
rate service.  For those of us in the Boston metropolitan area (I live
in Arlington, five miles outside of Boston), the relevant forms are
Unlimited Service and Metropolitan Service.  Every city has two sets
of calling areas, called Zone 1 and Zone 2.  If you have ordinary
Unlimited Service, you get flat rate calling to Central Boston and
Zone 1; to get Zone 2 included you have to get Metropolitan Service.
If you only have Unlimited Service (as I did until this month), you
can call Zone 2 without any prefix, but you're still charged around
$.06/minute.
 
Last month I got laid off and got an account on Netcom (stop 
laughing!),
and dialed up their Boston POP.  Since I didn't have a job, I spent
vast amounts of time dialed up to Netcom (about 110 hours over two
weeks).  I never bothered to check my phone book to see whether this
was in my unlimited calling area -- I assumed that since they called
it the Boston POP that it was in a Boston exchange, and I have
unlimited calling to Boston.  When the phone bill came I checked.  It
turned out that it was in Wellesley, one of about 5 cities in the
Boston metropolitan area that are in my Zone 2.  This was worse than
the time I came back from a business trip and discovered that someone
had tapped into my phone line and used it to make hundreds of dollars
of 976 calls.
 
I guess they don't want to make the necessity of dialing 1+ for toll
calls dependent on the service plan you've chosen.  I think all the
areas in eastern Massachusetts that require 1+ dialing from the Boston
metropolitan area are in the 508 area code that was added a few years
ago, so they don't have any "1+seven-digits" in 617 any more.  And as
part of the NANP change, they're replacing 1+seven-digits in 508 with
1+508-seven-digits there.
 
The story has a happy ending, though.  When I called NYNEX to upgrade
my service, I was lucky to get a very helpful service rep.  I asked if
I could have the upgrade made retroactive to the current billing
period, since the bill didn't come until about two weeks into the
period.  Not only did she do that, but she made it retroactive to the
previous billing period, and gave me a credit for most of that huge
phone bill.
 
 
Barry Margolin    BBN Internet Services Corp.  barmar@near.net
 
------------------------------
 
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 94 10:34:21 GMT
From: Carl Moore <cmoore@ARL.MIL>
Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls
 
 
museums@aol.com writes:
 
> What is weird is that on Long Island, area code 516, they still 
don't
> dial 1's for anything. I guess they can dial 800-xxx-xxxx or area
 
But to prepare for the coming of the NNX area codes, 516 has to start
enforcing 1 in front of area code; long distance within area code can
stay at 7D.
 
In the TELECOM Digest Editor's Note, there are some corrections:
 
> Prefixes like 417 and 305 are not old and traditional.
 
No, the body of the message said "NNX's (should be NXX's) that are old
traditional NPA", and my history file refers to these as N0X/N1X
prefixes.
 
> door neighbors in North Antioch, Wisconsin (404-397) by merely 
dialing
 
That is 414, not 404 in southeastern Wisconsin.
 
------------------------------
 
From: oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Subject: Re: Yet Another NYNEX Blunder
Date: 26 Sep 1994 15:48:11 GMT
Organization: Oppedahl & Larson
 
 
In <telecom14.369.1@eecs.nwu.edu> wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.
edu writes:
 
> In article <779506137snz@detroit.freenet.org> aa931@detroit.freenet.
> org writes:
 
>> One other point ... this is in response to a previous comment, but 
I don't
>> remember who wrote it:  When the telco says that they cannot or do 
not do
>> something because it is prohibited by tariff, _ask them to FAX or 
send you
>> the page(s) from the tariffs that contain that prohibition_.  You 
have the
>> right to see this information, and in at least one case I was able 
to call
>> a telco's bluff by asking them to send me the tariff that justified 
an
>> action they had taken (wrongly, as it turned out).
 
>-=> Quoting John Higdon <=-
 
> JH> This is excellent advice. Some years ago, some irate parent 
complained
> JH> about my "voice BBS" which is inhabited primarily by loser 
teenagers.
 
>        ... [text deleted] ...
 
> JH> I asked the gentleman to fax me the appropriate tariffs and we 
would
> JH> read them together. This he did, and after examining the five
> JH> applicable pages that described business vs residence service, 
he had
> JH> to conclude that my operation fully qualified as residence 
service.
 
> Many LECs will not send you a copy of the tariff or parts of
> it.  It varies by company and often by the individual you talk to 
(and
> that's often because of the particular circumstances).  They take 
the
> position that you can inspect the tariff in their offices or at the
> commission, but they are not required to make you a copy.
 
Yes, it's true.  Many telcos will not send you tariff pages.
 
Here in New York, one of the rare pro-customer moves by the PSC is a
relatively new rule that the PSC has to give you copies of tariff
pages (and lots of other things) for free as long as it is less than
some number of pages (25 as I recall).
 
 
Carl Oppedahl AA2KW    Oppedahl & Larson (patent lawyers)
Yorktown Heights, NY   oppedahl@patents.com
 
------------------------------
 
From: constellation!mom!tranquil.torii.nova.com!Wes.Leatherock (Wes
Leatherock)
Date: 26 Sep 94 10:56:26 -0600
Subject: Re: Yet Another NYNEX BQA@Llunder
Organization: Fidonet:
 
 
Quoting John Higdon:
 
> I asked the gentleman to fax me the appropriate tariffs and we would
> read them together. This he did, and after examining the five
> applicable pages that described business vs residence service, he 
had
> to conclude that my operation fully qualified as residence service.
 
         Many LECs will not send you a copy of the tariff or parts of
it.  It varies by company and often by the individual you talk to (and
that's often because of the particular circumstances).  They take the
position that you can inspect the tariff in their offices or at the
commission, but they are not required to make you a copy.
 
 
Wes Leatherock
wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.ed
wes.leatherock@tranquil.nova.com

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


From: Paul Robinson <PAUL@tdr.com>
 
 
Tony Pelliccio <Tony_Pelliccio@brown.edu>, writes:
 
> wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu writes:
 
>>         Many LECs will not send you a copy of the tariff..
 
> Yeah sort of like NYNEX. The copy of the tarrif for my area is
> in Boston of all places. If you think I'm going to drive up to
> Boston just to look at it you're nuts. But then, Telco has all
> the eggs in their basket don't they?
 
I don't know if you are simply posting from Brown or actually there,
but if NYNEX operates in Rhode Island, they have to have offices there
and certainly there has to be a copy filed with your state's 
commission.
 
In California, for example, every telephone company office -- which
included offices for paying bills -- had to have a complete copy of
the entire 15 volume tariff set.  Both GTE and Pacific Bell had their
own tariffs on file at each office which accepted payments from the
public.  Here in the Washington, DC area, there is a set of tariffs
for all three offices for Bell Atlantic and at their payment center
for the metro area which is located at 13th & G NW in DC.  Also, Bell
Atlantic has filed a copy of their tariff schedule with the main
branch of the public library in every county in Maryland.  I do not
know what they do in Virginia, I've never had phone service there.
 
I do know that a telephone company does not like having to let people
know what the tariffs actually say, and will do anything they can not 
to
have to let you see them.  By law they must make them available and
cannot require you to have a reason for seeing them.
 
One way to get some response from the company is to make your next
telephone bill payment to the Public Utilities Commission, stating
that you believe your bill to be in error, but cannot prove it because
the phone company refuses to provide any reasonable access to their
tariff schedules in order for you to discover what you suspect is an
error.
 
While you may or may not get a satisfactory response from the PUC, you
can bet that someone from the Telephone Company will contact you
immediately after your letter reaches them, even if the PUC decides to
deny your request.
 
One time I wanted to program a long distance number including the
10xxx code into a speed-dial number but the telephone company's
computer refused it, so I called 611 and nobody could tell me what was
wrong.  So I sent my bill for GTE of California and the check to the
Public Utilities Commission explaining the circumstances.  The CalPUC
returned my check explaining they could not accept my payment since
the issue was over service problems rather than a billing question.
 
But it was right after this that a helpful supervisor from GTE called
me and was very patient in explaining that their switch would not
allow a 10xxx code to be programmed into a speed dial number and they
would pass my complaint onto the manufacturer (which was probably also
GTE, but that's another story).  This was a piece of information that
nobody at repair service seemed to be able to provide me until AFTER I
had sent in a protest to the PUC.  I wonder if that had anything to do
with it. :)
 
 
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Interesting you mention the problem 
using
10xxx with Speed Dialing. One peculiar thing here is the inability to
call forward to an international number. We cannot get 011-anything
programmed following *72 ... and telco acts like they have no idea 
what
I am talking about when I mention it to them.   PAT]
 
------------------------------
 
From: ssatchell@BIX.com (ssatchell on BIX)
Subject: Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice
Date: 26 Sep 94 14:59:06 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
 
 
> Nick Sayer said:
 
>> If they're trying to imply that that is what a long distance phone
>> call sounds like (which despite truevoice is still constrained to
>> roughly 300-3000 Hz), then it's nothing short of outright fraud.
 
Sorry, I have to take exception to the claim that the bandwidth for
all telco customers is still 300-3000 Hz.  If that were true, then
there is no way for V.34 modem owners to achieve 28.8 kilobit/s
carriers with the modems -- they'd be constrained to 21.6 kilobits/s.
 
Since I do achieve 28.8 kilobits/s in calls between Incline Village,
Nevada and various locations in Georgia, Mass, and NYC, then either
the bandwidth is wider than you claim or the laws of physics have been
repealed.  Also, I've seen surveys (unscientific) produced by several
parties which show that the actual bandwidth is wider than the 2700 Hz
you claim.  Even Bellcore and IEEE P743 recognize that things are
wider.  In the case of P743, the new 23-tone test which should be a
standard by the end of the year sends out tones way outside the
300-3000 Hz bandswidth (100-3700 Hz based on an early draft of the
proposed IEEE-743 replacement) which would be stupid if the old rules
still held.
 
We don't have to protect any in-band network signalling any more.
That whistle that John Draper found in the box of Capt'n Crunch cereal
all those years ago DOESN'T WORK in the modern network.  Trunk
circuits, even the now-outmoded N-series trunks, were designed with
channels 4 KHz wide.  The frequency constraints, if memory serves,
were to improve speech quality by suppressing low-end frequencies
which don't contribute to intelligibility and "protecting" network
signalling at the high end.
 
Oh, there are a small number of older trunks still in use, and they
will block signals outside of the old passband.  They are being
replaced with digital trunks as quickly as the capital improvement
programs allow.  This isn't just in the United States, either -- we
are talking about a world-wide event.
 
 
Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations                       
ssatchell@bix.com
Testing modems for magazines and industry since 1984         
sts@well.sf.ca.us
Publisher of SEPTeL modem testing journal            
70007.3351@compuserve.com
 
------------------------------
 
From: bobsmith@coho.halcyon.com (Youth Alive International)
Subject: Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice
Date: 26 Sep 1994 05:24:33 GMT
Organization: NWNEXUS, Inc. - Making Internet Easy
 
 
In article <telecom14.372.5@eecs.nwu.edu>, David Adams <david@uslink.
net> wrote:
 
> It would be real interesting if somebody ran the same test as in the
> AT&T ad with the same song as an audio source and then post the
> results.
 
  That was already done.  Back when True Voice was just being
demo'd, before actual implementation, someone on the net did a bunch
of sound tests on (I believe) the demo, and demonstrated that the only
thing happening was the low bandwidth filter was being removed.
 
  Perhaps the moderator has this archived somewhere.
 
 
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Persons interested in the results of 
that
testing can check the Telecom Archives. Go to the /technical sub-
directory
and read the file on True Voice.   PAT]
 
------------------------------
 
From: tal@plts.org (Tom Limoncelli)
Subject: Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice
Date: 25 Sep 1994 22:43:43 -0400
Organization: PLTS, Somerville, NJ USA
 
 
In <telecom14.372.1@eecs.nwu.edu> cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) 
writes:
 
> BUT they fail to mention that it was the breakup of the Bell System
> which lowered these call costs. (Which also increased the cost of
> local calls by a large percentage.)
 
Actually, the price was dropping anyway.  The use of satelites was
causing a price implosion.
 
 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@plts.org (home) -- tal@big.att.com (work)
Write to me for info about internet mailing lists on these topics:
Drew University Alumni/ae, IXO/tpage users, New Jersey Unix Sysadmins' 
Group
(like SAGE), New Jersey motss, North East motss, BiNet/New Jersey, and 
more!
 
------------------------------
 
From: bjones@bilbo.pic.net (B. Jones)
Subject: Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice
Date: 26 Sep 1994 04:08:35 GMT
Organization: PICnet
 
 
They did a demo in my area a couple of months ago.  I thought that it
sounded better; a fuller sound (probably a low frequency boost. I read
some tech paper in a magazine once ... simply sounded better to me.
Sort of like Boise Sound Systems; I can't figure how they work, low
freq sound wave propogation lengths and such. But the little box
tricks my ears ... great!
 
------------------------------
 
From: bd80519@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (John Dean)
Subject: Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice
Date: 26 Sep 1994 02:30:01 GMT
Organization: Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY
 
 
The TV consumers today will believe anything that has to do with
computers.  But they are more attracted when silly graphics and
screens are added which really don't have any meaning to us 'real
power' users ... (Are we still the minority?)  Oh well ...
 
------------------------------
 
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 94 18:15:04 EDT
From: jbutz@hogpa.ho.att.com (John J Butz)
Subject: Re: AT&T Lying, TV a Fake & Other Slander
 
 
Folks must be a little tone deaf.
 
I can tell right away when TrueVoice is on my call or not.  Now that
10288 works for all my intra-lata toll calls, TrueVoice is added to
every non-local call I make.  In fact, this is a great little way to
test TrueVoice.  Place a call to your favorite SO on Bell Atlantic
followed by a call on AT&T, then note the difference.  (BTW, 10288 is
not only a great way to save on intra-lata toll, using it defeats *69
Return Call and Caller ID.)
 
I don't disagree that the TrueVoice television ads have a lot of that
Madison Avenue glitz (ie. back-up singers belting in when True Voice
activates, 3D spectrographs, sharply dressed and intelligent AT&T
employees ... like myself :-|, etc.), but it's really not fair to
state that what is heard on a TV set, is what will be heard on a phone
handset.  To that end, I noticed that ads are labeled "Simulated
TrueVoice Effect."
 
For a real comparison, the TrueVoice demo line can be reached by
dialing 1-800-932-2000.  Calls to this number are processed by the
same piece of equipment that provides TrueVoice in the network, so
what a caller hears IS the real TrueVoice.  (The voice on the demo is
that of James Naughton.)
 
Since reading TELECOM Digest is so enjoyable, I wish I had more time
to peruse and reply to Digest postings, but I've been totally
overwhelmed by current assignment.  Later.
 
 
John Butz      jbutz@hogpa.att.com      AT&T - CCS
 
PS.  What's the latest with the TrueVoice patent review?  It's nice to
know that someone else shares my hobby of reading yellowing, vintage
1920's, Bell Telephone Laboratories Technical Journals.  (The one
about Operators on Rollerskates is my favorite!!!!!!!)
 
------------------------------
 
From: bd80519@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Paul R. Paradiso)
Subject: Re: True Voice ... True Difference?
Date: 26 Sep 1994 02:00:32 GMT
Organization: Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY
 
 
Hello.  Actually, at this point I would like to believe that there IS
a difference.  The difference will probably be noticed in data
communications such as Modems, Fax, etc. It is amazing at how fast
the CPS rates can go up when the lines get clearer and clearer.  I
have tested my modem on a line and when it picked up the line thru an
"ATA" command, all I heard was static, but was perfectly fine for
Voice.  Since modems and fax, etc. send their tones at such a higher
speed today, they need as little blockage as possible.  Hopefully this
will help, if not, I'm not surprised ...
 
 
bd80519@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu
Paul R. Paradiso
 
------------------------------
 
From: naddy@mips.ruessel.sub.org (Christian Weisgerber)
Subject: Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice
Date: 26 Sep 1994 12:01:08 +0200
Reply-To: naddy@mips.lu.pfalz.de
 
 
jfritz@wvnvm.wvnet.edu (Jeffrey Fritz) writes:
 
> BTW, the telephone network supports a 300 - 3 kbps bandwidth for a
> reason -- understandability.
                                         300 .. 3000Hz?
 
Natural capacity of the line, Poupin coils, bandwidth restrictions for
analog multiplexing, bandwidth restrictions to accommodate the Nyquist
limit.
 
BTW, actual bandwidth in the modern digital PSTN is about 200 - 
3700Hz.
 
 
Christian 'naddy' Weisgerber, Germany
naddy@mips.ruessel.sub.org / naddy@mips.lu.pfalz.de
 
------------------------------
 
End of TELECOM Digest V14 #376
****************************
 


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 09-27-94                         Msg # 557843 
  To: ELIOT GELWAN                     Conf: (700) email
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick          Stat: Private
Subj: TELECOM Digest V14 #376          Read: No
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson))
 
 
TELECOM Digest     Mon, 26 Sep 94 14:03:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 
376
 
Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. 
Townson
 
     Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (John R 
Levine)
     Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (Thor 
Lancelot
Simon)
     Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (Glen 
Ecklund)
     Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (Robert 
Koskovich)
     Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (Dave 
Niebuhr)
     Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (Barry 
Margolin)
     Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (Carl 
Moore)
     Re: Yet Another NYNEX Blunder (Carl Oppedahl)
     Re: Yet Another NYNEX Blunder (Wes Leatherock)
     Re: Yet Another NYNEX Blunder (Paul Robinson)
     Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice (Stephen Satchell)
     Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice (Bob Smith)
     Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice (Tom Limoncelli)
     Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice (B. Jones)
     Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice (John Dean)
     AT&T Lying, TV a Fake and Other Slander (John J. Butz)
     Re: True Voice ... True Difference? (Paul R. Paradiso)
     Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice (Christian Weisgerber)
 
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 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 94 12:16 EDT
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine)
Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls
Organization: I.E.C.C., Cambridge, Mass.
 
 
> That luxury, of never having the same prefix in two ajoining area
> codes, had to be eliminated by sometime in the 1970's. So, there was
> another use for '1' on the front end. ...
 
Amazingly, in New Jersey, Land of Perfect Dialing, they still manage
to protect prefixes so that all in-state local calls can be dialed
with seven digits, even across 609/908/201 boundaries.  Local calls
into Pennsylvania and New York require eleven digits, though there are 
a
lot fewer of those than there are 201/908 and 908/609.
 
Of course, all calls within your NPA can be dialed either with seven
digits or with eleven, regardless of whether they're local, intra-LATA
toll, or inter-LATA toll.  At my beach cottage in Ocean County, which
is in what I believe is the only county in the U.S. that straddles
three separate LATAs, if we had to remember 1+ for toll, the phone
would be unusable.
 
 
Regards,
 
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, 1037498@mcimail.com
Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies"
 
------------------------------
 
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls
Date: 26 Sep 1994 12:36:24 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC
 
 
In article <telecom14.372.11@eecs.nwu.edu>, MUSEUMS <museums@aol.com> 
wrote:
 
> What is weird is that on Long Island, area code 516, they still 
don't
> dial 1's for anything. I guess they can dial 800-xxx-xxxx or area
> code-xxx-xxxx. I guess this means they don't have any NPA's as
> prefixes, or there is special software.
 
That was true for our entire LATA except NYC itself (Long Island,
Westchester, and Putnam counties) until this morning.
 
As of this morning, 1+ is required for calls to other area codes, even
within the LATA, at least at my switch. (Tuckahoe CO in Westchester)
The switch foreman says this will be a LATA-wide change, though he
doesn't know if all the other switches cut over today like mine did.
 
Broke a lot of my dial scripts, it did ...
 
 
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@panix.COM
 
------------------------------
 
From: glen@cs.wisc.edu (Glen Ecklund)
Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls
Date: 26 Sep 1994 10:33:14 GMT
Organization: University of WI, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.
 
 
oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes:
 
> In <telecom14.367.4@eecs.nwu.edu> Sanjiv Narayan 
<narayan@thoth.ICS.UCI.
> EDU> writes:
 
>> I have noticed a strange thing here since I became a NYNEX customer 
in
>> Marlboro, MA. They have a local calling area (approximatly five 
mile
>> radius) within which I can place unlimited calls for a flat charge.
 
>> However if I call a number outside my local calling area (but still 
**
>> within ** my 508 area-code), a recording asks you to redial with a 
'1'
>> prefixed before the seven-digit number I am calling.
 
>> Here's my question: If the NYNEX switching equipment is smart 
enough
>> to figure out that I need to dial a '1', why does it not go ahead 
and
>> complete the call anyway. I am willing to pay for the call 
regardless
>> of whether I redial with a '1' prefix or they complete it for me,
>> right !!?
 
> The reason is simple.  Right now the system is able to figure it
> out.  But there will be some future time when the system will not be
> able to, and the "1" will be quite necessary.  The goal is to change
> your behavior between now and then.
 
> The reason the system won't be able to figure it out someday is a
> function of all those phone numbers that start with area codes, etc.
 
Nope.  The reason is: 1 means "long distance."  OK, you are willing to
pay for the call, but if I make the call I want to know whether it is
long distance.  This will change soon, and 1 + 7D will no longer be
allowed.  It will change to either 1 + 10D, or just 7D.  1 will mean
"area code (or other special code) follows."
 
 
Glen Ecklund     glen@cs.wisc.edu   (608) 262-1318 Office, 262-1204 
Dept.
Sec'y
Department of Computer Sciences        1210 W. Dayton St., Room 3355
University of Wisconsin, Madison       Madison, Wis. 53706  U.S.A.
 
------------------------------
 
From: kosko@iii.net (Robert Koskovich)
Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls
Date: 26 Sep 1994 18:16:37 -0400
Organization: intuitive information, inc.
 
 
Sanjiv Narayan (narayan@thoth.ICS.UCI.EDU) wrote:
 
> It becomes very cumbersome when you have to redial the number with 
the
> '1' prefixed.
 
It'll become all that much more cumbersome when, on October 15, you're
required to dial "1-508" to place toll calls within your area code.
(You obviously haven't gotten NYNEX's bill stuffer yet.)
 
 
Bob Koskovich   Matick, MA
 
------------------------------
 
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 7:42:54 EDT
From: Dave Niebuhr <NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV>
Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls
 
 
In TELECOM Digest V14 #372 museums@aol.com (MUSEUMS) Richard writes:
 
> What is weird is that on Long Island, area code 516, they still 
don't
> dial 1's for anything. I guess they can dial 800-xxx-xxxx or area
> code-xxx-xxxx. I guess this means they don't have any NPA's as
> prefixes, or there is special software.
 
As of today, Sept. 24, 1994, Area Code 516 is 1+10D for anything other
than 516 and 7D for anything inside it.
 
 
Dave Niebuhr      Internet: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov
                             niebuhr@bnlcl6.bnl.gov (preferred)
                             niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Senior Technical Specialist, Scientific Computing Facility
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  1+(516) 282-3093
                                           FAX   1+(516) 282-7688
 
------------------------------
 
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@nic.near.net>
Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls
Date: 26 Sep 1994 12:18:31 -0400
Organization: NEARnet, Cambridge, MA
 
 
In article <telecom14.369.3@eecs.nwu.edu> varney@uscbu.ih.att.com 
writes:
 
> The MA PUC believes most customers want to use "1+" as an indication
> of "I know I am making a non-free call".
 
Unfortunately, they don't apply this rule consistently.  Last month I
had a $470 NYNEX phone bill, and didn't dial 1+ for any of those
calls.
 
The reason is that NYNEX in Massachusetts has various forms of flat
rate service.  For those of us in the Boston metropolitan area (I live
in Arlington, five miles outside of Boston), the relevant forms are
Unlimited Service and Metropolitan Service.  Every city has two sets
of calling areas, called Zone 1 and Zone 2.  If you have ordinary
Unlimited Service, you get flat rate calling to Central Boston and
Zone 1; to get Zone 2 included you have to get Metropolitan Service.
If you only have Unlimited Service (as I did until this month), you
can call Zone 2 without any prefix, but you're still charged around
$.06/minute.
 
Last month I got laid off and got an account on Netcom (stop 
laughing!),
and dialed up their Boston POP.  Since I didn't have a job, I spent
vast amounts of time dialed up to Netcom (about 110 hours over two
weeks).  I never bothered to check my phone book to see whether this
was in my unlimited calling area -- I assumed that since they called
it the Boston POP that it was in a Boston exchange, and I have
unlimited calling to Boston.  When the phone bill came I checked.  It
turned out that it was in Wellesley, one of about 5 cities in the
Boston metropolitan area that are in my Zone 2.  This was worse than
the time I came back from a business trip and discovered that someone
had tapped into my phone line and used it to make hundreds of dollars
of 976 calls.
 
I guess they don't want to make the necessity of dialing 1+ for toll
calls dependent on the service plan you've chosen.  I think all the
areas in eastern Massachusetts that require 1+ dialing from the Boston
metropolitan area are in the 508 area code that was added a few years
ago, so they don't have any "1+seven-digits" in 617 any more.  And as
part of the NANP change, they're replacing 1+seven-digits in 508 with
1+508-seven-digits there.
 
The story has a happy ending, though.  When I called NYNEX to upgrade
my service, I was lucky to get a very helpful service rep.  I asked if
I could have the upgrade made retroactive to the current billing
period, since the bill didn't come until about two weeks into the
period.  Not only did she do that, but she made it retroactive to the
previous billing period, and gave me a credit for most of that huge
phone bill.
 
 
Barry Margolin    BBN Internet Services Corp.  barmar@near.net
 
------------------------------
 
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 94 10:34:21 GMT
From: Carl Moore <cmoore@ARL.MIL>
Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls
 
 
museums@aol.com writes:
 
> What is weird is that on Long Island, area code 516, they still 
don't
> dial 1's for anything. I guess they can dial 800-xxx-xxxx or area
 
But to prepare for the coming of the NNX area codes, 516 has to start
enforcing 1 in front of area code; long distance within area code can
stay at 7D.
 
In the TELECOM Digest Editor's Note, there are some corrections:
 
> Prefixes like 417 and 305 are not old and traditional.
 
No, the body of the message said "NNX's (should be NXX's) that are old
traditional NPA", and my history file refers to these as N0X/N1X
prefixes.
 
> door neighbors in North Antioch, Wisconsin (404-397) by merely 
dialing
 
That is 414, not 404 in southeastern Wisconsin.
 
------------------------------
 
From: oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Subject: Re: Yet Another NYNEX Blunder
Date: 26 Sep 1994 15:48:11 GMT
Organization: Oppedahl & Larson
 
 
In <telecom14.369.1@eecs.nwu.edu> wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.
edu writes:
 
> In article <779506137snz@detroit.freenet.org> aa931@detroit.freenet.
> org writes:
 
>> One other point ... this is in response to a previous comment, but 
I don't
>> remember who wrote it:  When the telco says that they cannot or do 
not do
>> something because it is prohibited by tariff, _ask them to FAX or 
send you
>> the page(s) from the tariffs that contain that prohibition_.  You 
have the
>> right to see this information, and in at least one case I was able 
to call
>> a telco's bluff by asking them to send me the tariff that justified 
an
>> action they had taken (wrongly, as it turned out).
 
>-=> Quoting John Higdon <=-
 
> JH> This is excellent advice. Some years ago, some irate parent 
complained
> JH> about my "voice BBS" which is inhabited primarily by loser 
teenagers.
 
>        ... [text deleted] ...
 
> JH> I asked the gentleman to fax me the appropriate tariffs and we 
would
> JH> read them together. This he did, and after examining the five
> JH> applicable pages that described business vs residence service, 
he had
> JH> to conclude that my operation fully qualified as residence 
service.
 
> Many LECs will not send you a copy of the tariff or parts of
> it.  It varies by company and often by the individual you talk to 
(and
> that's often because of the particular circumstances).  They take 
the
> position that you can inspect the tariff in their offices or at the
> commission, but they are not required to make you a copy.
 
Yes, it's true.  Many telcos will not send you tariff pages.
 
Here in New York, one of the rare pro-customer moves by the PSC is a
relatively new rule that the PSC has to give you copies of tariff
pages (and lots of other things) for free as long as it is less than
some number of pages (25 as I recall).
 
 
Carl Oppedahl AA2KW    Oppedahl & Larson (patent lawyers)
Yorktown Heights, NY   oppedahl@patents.com
 
------------------------------
 
From: constellation!mom!tranquil.torii.nova.com!Wes.Leatherock (Wes
Leatherock)
Date: 26 Sep 94 10:56:26 -0600
Subject: Re: Yet Another NYNEX BQA@Llunder
Organization: Fidonet:
 
 
Quoting John Higdon:
 
> I asked the gentleman to fax me the appropriate tariffs and we would
> read them together. This he did, and after examining the five
> applicable pages that described business vs residence service, he 
had
> to conclude that my operation fully qualified as residence service.
 
         Many LECs will not send you a copy of the tariff or parts of
it.  It varies by company and often by the individual you talk to (and
that's often because of the particular circumstances).  They take the
position that you can inspect the tariff in their offices or at the
commission, but they are not required to make you a copy.
 
 
Wes Leatherock
wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.ed
wes.leatherock@tranquil.nova.com
 
------------------------------
 
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 05:26:51 EST
 
From: Paul Robinson <PAUL@tdr.com>

 
Tony Pelliccio <Tony_Pelliccio@brown.edu>, writes:
 
> wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu writes:
 
>>         Many LECs will not send you a copy of the tariff..
 
> Yeah sort of like NYNEX. The copy of the tarrif for my area is
> in Boston of all places. If you think I'm going to drive up to
> Boston just to look at it you're nuts. But then, Telco has all
> the eggs in their basket don't they?
 
I don't know if you are simply posting from Brown or actually there,
but if NYNEX operates in Rhode Island, they have to have offices there
and certainly there has to be a copy filed with your state's 
commission.
 
In California, for example, every telephone company office -- which
included offices for paying bills -- had to have a complete copy of
the entire 15 volume tariff set.  Both GTE and Pacific Bell had their
own tariffs on file at each office which accepted payments from the
public.  Here in the Washington, DC area, there is a set of tariffs
for all three offices for Bell Atlantic and at their payment center
for the metro area which is located at 13th & G NW in DC.  Also, Bell
Atlantic has filed a copy of their tariff schedule with the main
branch of the public library in every county in Maryland.  I do not
know what they do in Virginia, I've never had phone service there.
 
I do know that a telephone company does not like having to let people
know what the tariffs actually say, and will do anything they can not 
to
have to let you see them.  By law they must make them available and
cannot require you to have a reason for seeing them.
 
One way to get some response from the company is to make your next
telephone bill payment to the Public Utilities Commission, stating
that you believe your bill to be in error, but cannot prove it because
the phone company refuses to provide any reasonable access to their
tariff schedules in order for you to discover what you suspect is an
error.
 
While you may or may not get a satisfactory response from the PUC, you
can bet that someone from the Telephone Company will contact you
immediately after your letter reaches them, even if the PUC decides to
deny your request.
 
One time I wanted to program a long distance number including the
10xxx code into a speed-dial number but the telephone company's
computer refused it, so I called 611 and nobody could tell me what was
wrong.  So I sent my bill for GTE of California and the check to the
Public Utilities Commission explaining the circumstances.  The CalPUC
returned my check explaining they could not accept my payment since
the issue was over service problems rather than a billing question.
 
But it was right after this that a helpful supervisor from GTE called
me and was very patient in explaining that their switch would not
allow a 10xxx code to be programmed into a speed dial number and they
would pass my complaint onto the manufacturer (which was probably also
GTE, but that's another story).  This was a piece of information that
nobody at repair service seemed to be able to provide me until AFTER I
had sent in a protest to the PUC.  I wonder if that had anything to do
with it. :)
 
 
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Interesting you mention the problem 
using
10xxx with Speed Dialing. One peculiar thing here is the inability to
call forward to an international number. We cannot get 011-anything
programmed following *72 ... and telco acts like they have no idea 
what
I am talking about when I mention it to them.   PAT]
 
------------------------------
 
From: ssatchell@BIX.com (ssatchell on BIX)
Subject: Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice
Date: 26 Sep 94 14:59:06 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
 
 
> Nick Sayer said:
 
>> If they're trying to imply that that is what a long distance phone
>> call sounds like (which despite truevoice is still constrained to
>> roughly 300-3000 Hz), then it's nothing short of outright fraud.
 
Sorry, I have to take exception to the claim that the bandwidth for
all telco customers is still 300-3000 Hz.  If that were true, then
there is no way for V.34 modem owners to achieve 28.8 kilobit/s
carriers with the modems -- they'd be constrained to 21.6 kilobits/s.
 
Since I do achieve 28.8 kilobits/s in calls between Incline Village,
Nevada and various locations in Georgia, Mass, and NYC, then either
the bandwidth is wider than you claim or the laws of physics have been
repealed.  Also, I've seen surveys (unscientific) produced by several
parties which show that the actual bandwidth is wider than the 2700 Hz
you claim.  Even Bellcore and IEEE P743 recognize that things are
wider.  In the case of P743, the new 23-tone test which should be a
standard by the end of the year sends out tones way outside the
300-3000 Hz bandswidth (100-3700 Hz based on an early draft of the
proposed IEEE-743 replacement) which would be stupid if the old rules
still held.
 
We don't have to protect any in-band network signalling any more.
That whistle that John Draper found in the box of Capt'n Crunch cereal
all those years ago DOESN'T WORK in the modern network.  Trunk
circuits, even the now-outmoded N-series trunks, were designed with
channels 4 KHz wide.  The frequency constraints, if memory serves,
were to improve speech quality by suppressing low-end frequencies
which don't contribute to intelligibility and "protecting" network
signalling at the high end.
 
Oh, there are a small number of older trunks still in use, and they
will block signals outside of the old passband.  They are being
replaced with digital trunks as quickly as the capital improvement
programs allow.  This isn't just in the United States, either -- we
are talking about a world-wide event.
 
 
Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations                       
ssatchell@bix.com
Testing modems for magazines and industry since 1984         
sts@well.sf.ca.us
Publisher of SEPTeL modem testing journal            
70007.3351@compuserve.com
 
------------------------------
 
From: bobsmith@coho.halcyon.com (Youth Alive International)
Subject: Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice
Date: 26 Sep 1994 05:24:33 GMT
Organization: NWNEXUS, Inc. - Making Internet Easy
 
 
In article <telecom14.372.5@eecs.nwu.edu>, David Adams <david@uslink.
net> wrote:
 
> It would be real interesting if somebody ran the same test as in the
> AT&T ad with the same song as an audio source and then post the
> results.
 
  That was already done.  Back when True Voice was just being
demo'd, before actual implementation, someone on the net did a bunch
of sound tests on (I believe) the demo, and demonstrated that the only
thing happening was the low bandwidth filter was being removed.
 
  Perhaps the moderator has this archived somewhere.
 
 
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Persons interested in the results of 
that
testing can check the Telecom Archives. Go to the /technical sub-
directory
and read the file on True Voice.   PAT]
 
------------------------------
 
From: tal@plts.org (Tom Limoncelli)
Subject: Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice
Date: 25 Sep 1994 22:43:43 -0400
Organization: PLTS, Somerville, NJ USA
 
 
In <telecom14.372.1@eecs.nwu.edu> cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) 
writes:
 
> BUT they fail to mention that it was the breakup of the Bell System
> which lowered these call costs. (Which also increased the cost of
> local calls by a large percentage.)
 
Actually, the price was dropping anyway.  The use of satelites was
causing a price implosion.
 
 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@plts.org (home) -- tal@big.att.com (work)
Write to me for info about internet mailing lists on these topics:
Drew University Alumni/ae, IXO/tpage users, New Jersey Unix Sysadmins' 
Group
(like SAGE), New Jersey motss, North East motss, BiNet/New Jersey, and 
more!
 
------------------------------
 
From: bjones@bilbo.pic.net (B. Jones)
Subject: Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice
Date: 26 Sep 1994 04:08:35 GMT
Organization: PICnet
 
 
They did a demo in my area a couple of months ago.  I thought that it
sounded better; a fuller sound (probably a low frequency boost. I read
some tech paper in a magazine once ... simply sounded better to me.
Sort of like Boise Sound Systems; I can't figure how they work, low
freq sound wave propogation lengths and such. But the little box
tricks my ears ... great!
 
------------------------------
 
From: bd80519@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (John Dean)
Subject: Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice
Date: 26 Sep 1994 02:30:01 GMT
Organization: Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY
 
 
The TV consumers today will believe anything that has to do with
computers.  But they are more attracted when silly graphics and
screens are added which really don't have any meaning to us 'real
power' users ... (Are we still the minority?)  Oh well ...
 
------------------------------
 
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 94 18:15:04 EDT
From: jbutz@hogpa.ho.att.com (John J Butz)
Subject: Re: AT&T Lying, TV a Fake & Other Slander
 
 
Folks must be a little tone deaf.
 
I can tell right away when TrueVoice is on my call or not.  Now that
10288 works for all my intra-lata toll calls, TrueVoice is added to
every non-local call I make.  In fact, this is a great little way to
test TrueVoice.  Place a call to your favorite SO on Bell Atlantic
followed by a call on AT&T, then note the difference.  (BTW, 10288 is
not only a great way to save on intra-lata toll, using it defeats *69
Return Call and Caller ID.)
 
I don't disagree that the TrueVoice television ads have a lot of that
Madison Avenue glitz (ie. back-up singers belting in when True Voice
activates, 3D spectrographs, sharply dressed and intelligent AT&T
employees ... like myself :-|, etc.), but it's really not fair to
state that what is heard on a TV set, is what will be heard on a phone
handset.  To that end, I noticed that ads are labeled "Simulated
TrueVoice Effect."
 
For a real comparison, the TrueVoice demo line can be reached by
dialing 1-800-932-2000.  Calls to this number are processed by the
same piece of equipment that provides TrueVoice in the network, so
what a caller hears IS the real TrueVoice.  (The voice on the demo is
that of James Naughton.)
 
Since reading TELECOM Digest is so enjoyable, I wish I had more time
to peruse and reply to Digest postings, but I've been totally
overwhelmed by current assignment.  Later.
 
 
John Butz      jbutz@hogpa.att.com      AT&T - CCS
 
PS.  What's the latest with the TrueVoice patent review?  It's nice to
know that someone else shares my hobby of reading yellowing, vintage
1920's, Bell Telephone Laboratories Technical Journals.  (The one
about Operators on Rollerskates is my favorite!!!!!!!)
 
------------------------------
 
From: bd80519@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Paul R. Paradiso)
Subject: Re: True Voice ... True Difference?
Date: 26 Sep 1994 02:00:32 GMT
Organization: Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY
 
 
Hello.  Actually, at this point I would like to believe that there IS
a difference.  The difference will probably be noticed in data
communications such as Modems, Fax, etc. It is amazing at how fast
the CPS rates can go up when the lines get clearer and clearer.  I
have tested my modem on a line and when it picked up the line thru an
"ATA" command, all I heard was static, but was perfectly fine for
Voice.  Since modems and fax, etc. send their tones at such a higher
speed today, they need as little blockage as possible.  Hopefully this
will help, if not, I'm not surprised ...
 
 
bd80519@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu
Paul R. Paradiso
 
------------------------------
 
From: naddy@mips.ruessel.sub.org (Christian Weisgerber)
Subject: Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice
Date: 26 Sep 1994 12:01:08 +0200
Reply-To: naddy@mips.lu.pfalz.de
 
 
jfritz@wvnvm.wvnet.edu (Jeffrey Fritz) writes:
 
> BTW, the telephone network supports a 300 - 3 kbps bandwidth for a
> reason -- understandability.
                                         300 .. 3000Hz?
 
Natural capacity of the line, Poupin coils, bandwidth restrictions for
analog multiplexing, bandwidth restrictions to accommodate the Nyquist
limit.
 
BTW, actual bandwidth in the modern digital PSTN is about 200 - 
3700Hz.
 
 
Christian 'naddy' Weisgerber, Germany
naddy@mips.ruessel.sub.org / naddy@mips.lu.pfalz.de
 
------------------------------
 
End of TELECOM Digest V14 #376
****************************
 

