TELECOM Digest     Fri, 14 Oct 94 15:07:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue
398
 
Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. 
Townson
 
     BCI, MCI Get Greater Share of Clear Communications (NZ) (Dave 
Leibold)
     Canadian Long Distance Contribution Controversy (Bell News via D. 
Leibold)
     CFP: Applied Informatics (Dennis Warwoda)
     Analog Dial-up Video Conference Packages? (Robyn Rudisill)
     Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Loop Technology (Thoo Chin Choy)
     Billable 800 Service (John Steele)
     How Can I Get a Good International Circuit (Julian Thornhill)
     Need Information on State Telecom Equipment Procurement (Bob 
Beck)
     Book to Help in Dealing With Phone Companies (Hon Wah Chin)
     TeleCon in Toronto (David McKellar)
     UNC-CH Faculty Job Opening (Scott Barker)
     A Question Concerning Fax Broadcasting (Keith George Long)
     Re: Frame Relay vs. ISDN vs. T1 vs. ???? (Pete Farmer)
     Re: Frame Relay vs. ISDN vs. T1 vs. ???? (James D. Wilson)
     Re: GTE Airphone Begins Ground-to-Air Service (For Free!) (Phil 
Gladstone)
     Re: GTE Airphone Begins Ground-to-Air Service (For Free!) (John 
R. Levine)
 
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the 
moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
 
Subscriptions are available 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: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Dave Leibold)
Date: 13 Oct 94 23:24:10 -0500
Subject: BCI, MCI get greater share of Clear Communications (NZ)
Organization: FidoNet Nameserver/Gateway
 
 
[from Bell News, 10 Oct 94, content is Bell Canada's]
 
BCI improves stake in New Zealand's Clear
 
NZ Rail Ltd. sold its 15 per cent stake in Clear Communications Ltd.,
a major reseller, to four other shareholders, among them MCI
Communications Corp. of Washington and Bell Canada International.
 
Each of the four now owns 25 per cent of Clear.
 
------------------------------
 
From: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Dave Leibold)
Date: 13 Oct 94 23:24:02 -0500
Subject: Canadian Long Distance Contribution Controversy
Organization: FidoNet: The Super Continental - North York, Canada
 
 
[from Bell News, 10 Oct 94, content is Bell Canada's]
 
Sprint and Unitel appeal contribution aspect of landmark CRTC decision
 
Alternative long distance carriers - Unitel and Sprint - are appealing
portions of the CRTC's landmark decision (94-19) which changed the way
telecommunications in Canada will be regulated in the future.
 
As part of its decision, announced on September 16, the CRTC ordered
changes to the way in which contribution to support basic telephone
service is paid by long distance carriers, including the telephone
companies.
 
Unitel (on Friday, September 30) and Sprint (on Monday, October 3)
formally requested the CRTC review and stay portions of this decision.
 
In their application, they claim they cannot afford to subsidize
local service according to the Carrier Access Tariff (CAT) method set
out by the CRTC.
 
The CAT method is based on a fixed charged for each minute of long
distance traffic carried over the local network. CAT will apply to
all inter-exchange carriers including Bell.
 
Before the decision, alternate carriers paid a contribution based on
the number of trunks they leased or owned.
 
Under the per-trunk method, alternate carriers were able to offer
huge LD discounts (mainly to residential customers) to keep their
lines busy in the slower, non-business hours. Under the CAT method of
calculating contribution, the busier their lines, the greater their
contribution will be.
 
The appealing carriers claim they should pay no contribution on
off-peak minutes and the telephone companies should pay on all
minutes.
 
Bell was taken aback by the appeals, accusing Unitel and Sprint of
"sending mixed signals."
 
Said a Bell spokesperson: "On the one hand both of these companies
have been publicly touting their success in the long distance market
and their financial viability. On the other, they claim to the CRTC
their ability to serve customers is under threat."
 
And as to the issue of per-trunk versus per-minute contribution, it's
"not new, " claimed the spokesperson.
 
"It has been discussed in four regulatory proceedings in the last two
years.
 
"What the CRTC has done is to close a loophole that competitors were
using to their advantage to avoid paying a fair but reduced (compared
to the telephone companies) share of the local service subsidy."
 
------------------------------
 
From: warwodad@cuug.ab.ca (Dennis Warwoda B288-1195 H293-5227)
Subject: CFP: Applied Informatics
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 13:10:10 -0400
Organization: Calgary UNIX User's Group
 
 
                         CALL FOR PAPERS
               Twelfth IASTED International Conference
                       APPLIED INFORMATICS
                       February 20-23, 1995
                       Innsbruck, AUSTRIA
 
SPONSORS: The International Association of Science and Technology 
(IASTED)
               * Technical Committee on Modelling and Simulation
               * Technical Committee on Computers
 
LOCATION: Congress Innsbruck Igls, Postfach 533, Rennweg 3, A-6021 
Innsbruck,
           Tirol, Austria
 
SCOPE: Main areas to be covered:
         * COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE                 * DISTRIBUTED 
PROCESSING
         * SOFTWARE                              * APPLICATIONS
         * ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE               * NETWORKS
         * SYSTEMS                               * SIMULATION
 
INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM COMMITTEE:
K. Adamson              Northern Ireland
B. Furht                USA
J.L. Houle              Canada
J. Keane                UK
E. Luque                Spain
G. Mastronardi          Italy
J. Malko                Poland
L. Miller               USA
C. Pellegrini           Switzerland
J.A. Peperstraete       Belgium
S. Pulko                UK
M. Yaacob               Malaysia
 
SUBMISSION OF ABSTRACTS:
 
The abstracts submitted for review should be prepared for "regular" or
"short" papers.  The "regular" papers should be up to the standard
expected for publication in an international journal.  An abstract of
a regular paper should be at least 500 words in length, should present
a clear and concise view of the motivation of the subject, give an
outline of the paper, and a list of references.  For "short papers"
the abstracts should have a maximum of 250 words.
 
Three copies of the abstracts for both categories of papers should
reach the IASTED Secretariat in Zurich, Switzerland (Fax: (01)
261-0083) before OCTOBER 30, 1994.  Authors should provide a maximum
of five key words describing their work, and must include a statement
confirming that if their paper is accepted one of the authors will
attend the conference to present the paper.  Please include the full
name, affiliation, full address, fax number, and e-mail, if available.
 
Notification to the authors will be mailed by NOVEMBER 18, 1994.
Authors of an accepted paper are requested to make an advance payment
of SFr 300 to IASTED by JANUARY 2, 1995.
 
All accepted papers, regular and short, will be published in the
proceedings.  The papers must be received at the conference prior to
presentation.
 
                  **** IMPORTANT DATES ****
 
October 30, 1994 - Abstracts due in Switzerland
November 18, 1994 - Notification to the authors mailed
January 2, 1995 - Advanced payment of SFr 300 due
 
CONFERENCE SECRETARIAT:
         IASTED Secretariat Switzerland    IASTED Secretariat Canada
         P.O. Box 354                      4500 - 16th Avenue N.W.
         CH-8053 Zurich                    Unit #80
         Switzerland                       Calgary, Alberta
         Fax: +41-1-261-0083               Canada  T3B 0M6
                                           Fax: (403) 247-6851
                                           Tel: (403) 288-1195
                                           E-mail: 
iasted@istd.cuug.ab.ca
 
------------------------------
 
From: Robyn Rudisill <RobynR@shapeware.com>
Subject: Analog Dial-up Video Conference Packages?
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 94 10:30:00 PDT
 
 
Has anyone out there ever used an analog video conference package?  If
so, which one did you use and what did you think of it. I am looking
for a low cost solution, but with decent speed.
 
Thanks in advance.
 
 
robynr@shapeware.com
 
------------------------------
 
From: s2ccthoo@iss.nus.sg (SE2 Thoo Chin Choy)
Subject: Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Loop Technology
Date: 14 Oct 1994 17:53:36 GMT
Organization: Institute Of Systems Science, NUS
 
 
Hello everbody,
 
I am posting this on behalf of my friend who is writing a paper on
Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Loop (ADSL) technology for one of his
graduate projects.
 
This new access technology is a series modem-type technologies which
can turn a stabdard copper telephone circuit into a high-speed digital
service. It operates at different frequencies to the normal telephony
and therefore both can coexist on the existing twisted pair telephone.
 
He needs information on the following areas regarding ADSL:
 
  1. What are some of the technical difficulties faced when exploiting
     ADSL?
 
  2. What are some of the techniques that may be employed to overcome 
the
     problems (identified in 1)?
 
  3. Any good reference on this subject (journals, books, etc)?
 
 
Any info regarding the subject is very much appreciated. Please email 
to
<s2ccthoo@class.iss.nus.sg>.
 
 
Thanks.
 
------------------------------
 
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 13:56:25 -0400
From: jsteele@gate.net (John Steele)
Subject: Billable 800 Service
 
 
I have been following with interest the billable-800 service nonsense.
Most recently the appearance of 800-CALL-INFO to get a number.  I
recall recently seeing an interview with the Chairman of the FCC (as I
recall it was him, could have been another member).  In this interview
he took the position that the FCC could not take action to prevent the
800 billing matter without new legislation from Congress. This
attitude is typical of the bureaucracy.  When they want to do we're
not going to like they assert that "Congress told us to".  When they
don't want to get involved they say "Congress will have to authorize
it".
 
I would contend that the FCC has sufficient authority to prohibit this
practice based simply on precedent ... there are literally decades of
common practice for the 800 service being billed only to the 
subscriber/
owner. This has created a common perception and attitude among people
that they do not pay for 800 calls. In fact, I would assert that the
"toll free 800 call" has long since stopped being common carrier
provided service and has passed into the culture as a concept, much
like the "xerox" machine ... it is no longer identifiable as a 
specific
service or product.  Clearly, the common carriers have provided
merchants a mechanism to charge customers "whatever the traffic will
bear" when they created the 900 & 976 services.  Prohibiting the
subversion of the 800-system would not unduly restrain merchants from
having a way to conduct their "business" at the customer's expense.
 
There are reams and reams of case law based on common law, which is
nothing more than codified common practice. The FCC could simply
outlaw the practice ... the burden of change, either through the
courts of the legislature, would then fall on the scam artists who are
benefiting from this.
 
 
John Steele    information systems technology, inc.   miami
 
 
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In fairness though to the companies
which are the subject of your complaint, is it not true that since the
beginning of 800 service -- and even with its predecessor service
'Enterprise' and 'Zenith' -- people have called those numbers wishing
to order merchandise or services and have paid with credit cards for
the merchandise or services rendered? For example, we call 800 numbers
*at no charge* to order books and magazines *for which we expect to
pay* usually via credit card. We call 800 numbers to order a variety
of goods and services; why not to order 'information' to be delivered
by phone?
 
The companies using this technique rightfully contend that the cost of
carriage -- the telephone call itself -- is 'free' to the caller, with
the costs borne by the recipient. I think you will find that even when
the astrologers, the sex purveyors and the others answer the phone 
even
for the purpose of saying they will not provide you with the 
information
requested because you are (a) calling from a payphone with no other
method of payment or (b) have previously refused to pay they are still
charged for the carriage. They still pay the 10-15 cents or whatever 
for
the minute of conversation required to tell you they will not service
you for whatever reason.
 
With that in mind, that the recipient of an 800 call does pay for the
call itself -- regardless of whether or not some transfer of 
merchandise
or 'information' takes place as a result -- the companies doing this 
are
not any different than the company which takes your order for airline
tickets by phone or the customer service representative at the book or
magazine order center.  They agree (using an 800 number) to pay for 
your
call as a way to encourage you to call them and purchase whatever it 
is
they have for sale.
 
The gripes and complaints seem to arise owing to the nature of what is
being sold (information by telephone) and the method of payment most
commonly used (charge to local telephone bill). There is a question in
my mind as to the propriety of charging anything via telephone bills
except for the cost of carriage (or connection) itself, and that 
includes
the use of 900/976 numbers. The precedent for 'charge to phone bill'
began about sixty years ago with Western Union and its close 
relationship
to the old Bell System. For that matter, when WUTCO changed to an 800
number and had all calls funnelled through its central message center 
in
St. Louis you could still charge the telegram to your phone bill, so 
even
having 800 as a factor in this is not all that new.
 
Ah, but you say naughty children do not call up Western Union in the
middle of the night -- if they even heard of the grand old company -- 
and
place telegrams charged to their parent's phone bill, nor do 
university
students suffering from post-midnight sleeplessness and certain other
psychological tensions best left unnamed use WUTCO services. They do
however enjoy using other services sold these days by telephone with 
the
hope that when it comes time to pay for the services rendered someone
else will get the bill. *That is the problem, in a nutshell*: The 
immense
popularity of 'certain kinds' of information and the propensity of the
people benefitting from that 'information' to not have to pay for it 
at
all if they can avoid it. Did you hear the one about the prostitute 
who
goes into the bank to get change for a hundred dollar bill?  The bank
teller looks carefully at the money and says, "this bill is 
counterfeit."
The prostitute becomes outraged and screams, "My God, I was raped!"
 
To avoid the legal raping most information providers were getting via
900/976 and telco's very liberal 'write it off, no questions asked'
policy (and they meant the IP can write it off, not us, heh! heh!)  --
peculiar only to 900/976 I might add -- and to avoid the detours in
the road leading to their electronic houses of ill-repute put in the
way by telecom administrators who had gotten a bellyfull of paying for
someone else's good times and Christian parents who were angry about
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
The answer is quit allowing ANYTHING to be billed to telephone 
accounts
except for *telephone calls*, period. No telegrams, no flowers, no 
cable
television premium movie, no sex, nothing. Require information 
providers
to bill however they want otherwise, by credit card or open account or
prepayment. Then, everyone should be happy. Everyone, that is, as the
IPs are quick to point out, except the weather forecast, time-of-day, 
and
certain other 'quick recorded message' IPs -- the 'clean' side of the
industry -- for whom anything other than telco billing would be 
extremely
inconvenient and almost impossible.  But then, by comparison, no one 
calls
those guys anyway ... <grin> ...  so who cares?     PAT]
 
------------------------------
 
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 16:17:40 +0100
From: jth@ion.le.ac.uk (Julian Thornhill)
Subject: How Can I Get a Good International Circuit
 
 
I want to regularly set up a modem link between UK and Finland using
28.8kbps modems. Obviously I am only going to get this speed if I get
a good circuit. Is there any way that the UK telco (BT or Mercury) can
set up a "good" circuit routing for me or is it in the lap of the
computers? If it is technically possible I'll get on to them but I
would like to be forearmed before I ask.
 
I have considered ISDN but the call costs are twice as much for only
just over twice the bandwidth and I'll have to buy some expensive bits
of hardware so I'd rather stick with my modems for the time being.
 
 
Regards,
 
Julian Thornhill
Ionospheric Physics Group  Leicester University
University Road  Leicester LE1 7RH, UK
Tel 0116 252 3566 Fax 0116 252 3555
 
------------------------------
 
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 09:00:43 -0500
From: rab@vienna.ssds.com (Bob Beck)
Subject: Re: Need Information on State Telecom Equipment Procurement
 
 
Public Technology, Inc. (PTI) and MCI offer a service called PTS 2000,
a local government long distance telecommunications network.  Ten
state municipal leagues are using PTS 2000 currently:
 
         Arkansas        Indiana         Iowa
         Kansas          Louisana        Maine
         Mass.           Minnesota       Missouri
         South Carolina
 
PTI is a non-profit organization based in Washington, DC that develops
technologies to support local governments.  By pooling the buying
power of local governments across the country, PTS 2000 gives pricing
and service advantages to these local governments.
 
 
Bob Beck     SSDS, Inc.
8150 Leesburg Pike, #1100
Vienna, VA 22182
703.827.0806 x152
703.827.0716 FAX
 
------------------------------
 
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 10:10:18 -0700
From: Hon Wah Chin <hwc@kalpana.com>
Subject: Book to Help in Dealing With Phone Companies
Reply-To: hwc@kalpana.com
 
 
Does anyone have a suggestion for a reference or text book that would
help a fledging facilities person who got saddled with the
phone/telecom issues?  This is to help a novice to support a company
with a PABX with ~150 lines, voicemail, a T1 to the CO and a long
distance carrier.  (ie more than residential stuff but not a BIG
network) The main requirement is enough explanation and glossary to
help in talking to the installers, repair people and sales and
marketing types.
 
 
Hon Wah Chin   hwc@kalpana.com
 
------------------------------
 
From: dmntor!djm (David McKellar)
Subject: TeleCon in Toronto
Organization: Digital Media Networks, Toronto, Canada
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 22:05:29 -0400
 
 
I visited a show called TeleCon in Toronto today.  All the usual
suspects were there.  I'll just mention some things I found
interesting ...
 
I watched Howard Reingold (of Wired magazine) get interviewed and
interviewed. He was wearing a neato green suit and wow shoes.  What
did he say?  Well among other things, in response to a question from
the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp) he said "Canada was the most
exciting place to be now".  Aw shucks.
 
I went on a tour of a working Northern Telecom Central Office in a
transport trailer.  Without much coaxing the tour guide/operator
pulled out a trunk circuit board carrier about 800 calls and we
watched the redundant backup board kick in.  The fellow seemed to
really like the the switch and I liked that.
 
I talked to my colleague via frame relay and thru a fiber optic
test set.
 
Unitel (the number two long distance carrier here) had about ten 
booths
offering free calls in Canada.  ACC had something better -- free calls
to England but I don't know anyone there.
 
On the tired highway metaphore front: I counted four cars at booths.
Motorola had the most dramatic racing car.
 
Bell had this Info Highway room room complete with road-type signs.
But when I got there 30 minutes before the show closed this room was
closed.  What did I miss?
 
I wonder if anyone has any other comments about this show?
 
 
D a v e     M c K e l l a r     d j m @ d m n t o r . U U C P
 
------------------------------
 
From: scott@ils.unc.edu (Scott Barker)
Subject: UNC-CH Faculty Job Opening
Date: 13 Oct 1994 22:27:41 GMT
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina, Information/Library Science
 
 
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill announces a
tenure-track position (assistant/associate professor) in the School of
Information and Library Science.  The School seeks applications from
scholars whose research and teaching interests address 
telecommunications
and networking, and/or multimedia/hypermedia systems.  Faculty members
are expected to en- gage in research and to report new insights
through publication and teaching.  Faculty members also advise masters
and doctoral students and serve on School and University committees.
Minimum qualifications include an earned doctorate by the starting
date, a research agenda, and evidence of teaching competence.  Minimum
salary is $40,000 for assistant; $45,000 for associate.  The review
process will begin Jan.  15, 1995; preliminary interviews are planned
for the following conferences: ASIS (Alexandria, VA, October 1994);
ALISE (Philadelphia, February 1995); and ACM Computer Science
Conference (Nashville, TN, February 1995).  Applications will be
accepted until the position is filled.  Preferred starting date is
August 1995.  Send letter of application, resume, and names of three
references to:
 
Barbara M. Wildemuth, Chair, Faculty Search Committee
School of Information and Library Science
CB # 3360, 100 Manning Hall
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3360
Phone:  919-962-8366; Fax:  919-962-8071
email:  wildem@ils.unc.edu
 
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is an affirmative
action, equal opportunity employer.
 
------------------------------
 
From: kglong@whale.st.usm.edu (Keith George Long)
Subject: A Question Concerning Fax Broadcasting
Date: 14 Oct 1994 00:32:57 GMT
Organization: University of Southern Mississippi
 
 
Hello,
 
    Would anyone out there happen to know the FCC rules/regulations
concerning unsolicited fax broadcasting?  Are these regulations
enforceable?  How?
 
    I recently read that if a recent FCC ruling were upheld, it could
mean a $500 (per fax) fine.  Any information/discussion on this issue
would be most welcome.
 
 
Sincerely,
 
Keith    kglong@whale.st.usm.edu
 
------------------------------
 
From: pete@tetherless.com (Pete Farmer)
Subject: Re: Frame Relay vs. ISDN vs. T1 vs. ????
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 15:31:45 -0800
Organization: Tetherless Access Ltd.
 
 
In article <telecom14.395.1@eecs.nwu.edu>, lars@spectrum.RNS.COM (Lars
Poulsen) wrote:
 
> spelegan@csc.com wrote:
 
>> We have a commercial customer who's asked us to setup a BBS system 
for
>> them.  They've asked us to recommend a telecom option for them to
>> use that best suits their needs.  They'd like to start out with 8
>> lines going into the BBS with the ability to move up to 16, 24, 
etc.
>> They'd like their customers to have one 800 number to call to reach
>> this BBS, no matter where they are in the US.  Their customers will
>> have off-the-shelf modems, ranging from 1200-14.4 baud.
 
> The requirement here is for an economical way to accept POTS calls 
for
> modem traffic. This means that X.25 service, Frame Relay, ISDN etc 
are
> all outside of the scope of this query. That will not prevent me 
from
> getting back to them at the end, though.
 
Well, X.25 service is not necessarily out of the question.  If the
customer needs nationwide (or even international) access to the BBS
with a local telephone call, it might make sense to contract with the
CompuServe Packet Network, with MCI XStream (nee Tymnet), or with
SprintNet.  These outfits can provide local dial-up access to their
X.25 nets and drop the traffic to the customer's doorstep through a
single pipe.  This can be a lot more hassle-free than operating a
modem bank.
 
> Finally:
 
> You should give serious consideration to putting such a BBS on the
> Internet.
 
I agree -- especially when the BBS is to be accessed by people outside
of their company.
 
 
Peter J. Farmer            Internet: pete@tetherless.com
VP - Marketing             Voice:    415-843-6880 ext. 16
Tetherless Access Ltd.     Fax:      415-843-6890
2468 Embarcadero Way       Palo Alto, CA   94303
Visit our WWW site!   URL=http://www.tetherless.com/
 
------------------------------
 
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 18:36:09 HST
From: NetSurfer <jdwilson@gold.chem.hawaii.edu>
Subject: Re: Frame Relay vs. ISDN vs. T1 vs. ????
 
 
In Hawaii, you can get 56KB with an install of $95 and monthly
recurring of $200 per site and 1 PVC (permanent virtual circuit.)
HawTel does not specify prices per commited bandwidth, but would
generally suggest the next higher bandwidth rate above 80%.  Frame
relay support on routers tends to be a simple software option (if not
standard support.)  The big advantage of frame relay here is that it
is not distance based i.e. it costs the same to have a circuit between
Honolulu and Waikiki (all on Oahu) as between Honolulu and Hilo (190
miles apart and on the Big Island of Hawai'i) As a service point we
can have a standard monthly recurring with each additional site
carrying their own monthly recurring charges.  All we have to do is
ensure that we support a high enough bandwidth for peak tx times from
multiple sites.
 
 
James D. Wilson        |V.PGP 2.7:   512/E12FCD 1994/03/17
P. O. Box 15432        |     finger for full PGP key
Honolulu, HI  96830    |==================================
Serendipitous Solutions|    Also NetSurfer@sersol.com
 
------------------------------
 
From: Philip.Gladstone@mail.citicorp.com (Philip Gladstone)
Subject: Re: GTE Airphone Begins Ground-to-Air Service (For Free!)
Date: 13 Oct 1994 10:08:32 -0400
Organization: Citicorp
Reply-To: Philip.Gladstone@mail.citicorp.com
 
 
DREUBEN@EAGLE.WESLEYAN.EDU wrote:
 
> Just got some mail from GTE Airphone.
 
[Interesting stuff about free inbound calls to AIRPHONEs on certain
  flights deleted]
 
At the end of last month, on the USAIR Shuttle, AIRPHONE were running
a promotion for a free five minute call if you filled out one of their
comment cards. This was to try out their new digital service.
 
Personally, I thought that the quality was terrible -- certainly worse
than the old analog system. I guess that the voice was compressed down
to 4.8k. It sounded as though the other party was underwater, and you
could only just recognize the other speaker. The voice lag was very
noticeable -- this was probably satellite delay.
 
All in all, if I had paid for the call, I'd want my money back!
 
 
Philip Gladstone - Consultant
Citicorp Global Information Network
 
------------------------------
 
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 94 00:33 EDT
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine)
Subject: Re: GTE Airphone Begins Ground-to-Air Service (For Free!)
Organization: I.E.C.C., Cambridge, Mass.
 
 
> If you chose to answer the call, you first get a chance to see who 
is
> calling you, ie GTE transmit's the ANI from the 800 number to your
> seat. ...
 
Turns out that's not what happens.  For an incoming Airphone call, the
caller calls the 800 number, hits 1 to say make incoming call, dials
the ten-digit customer number (the one on the card the person in the
air has swiped through his reader), then dial your own number and
optionally an extension number.  Then it hangs up.
 
If the person in the air accepts the call, it calls you back.
 
 
Regards,
 
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, jlevine@delphi.com
Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies"
 
------------------------------
 
End of TELECOM Digest V14 #398
****************************
 

