Aucbvax.2918
fa.telecom
utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!telecom
Wed Sep 2 22:06:20 1981
TELECOM Digest V1 #8
>From JSol@RUTGERS Wed Sep 2 21:45:05 1981
TELECOM AM Digest Wednesday, 2 Sep 1981 Volume 1 : Issue 8
Today's Topics:
Cost of Service - Touch Tone vs. Dial Pulse
Switching to Satellite - Protocol Conversion
TSPS Monitoring - More Than 1%
Bill Paying by Phone
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2 Sep 1981 04:13:08-PDT
From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley
In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin
Location: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Subject: touch-tone costs
I'd like to repeat a query I sent in to human-nets but never saw
appear, let alone be answered.
What are the relative costs to the phone company for TouchTone vs.
rotary dial phones? What about the sensing equipment? Are there any
significant cost advantages to be gained by restricting some
exchange/switching machine to TouchTone? The reason I'm curious is
that within a month of the installation of an ESS here in Chapel Hill
(June 28), every pay phone in sight had been switched to TouchTone.
If TouchTone is more expensive, why go to the expense of converting
existing phones? If it's cheaper, why are consumers charged more?
Because it's viewed as a "frill" by the regulatory commissions, much
as colored phones once were? Are maintenance considerations the
answer? Pay phones obviously take much more abuse.
------------------------------
Date: 2 Sep 1981 0908-PDT
From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT USC-ISIB AT>
Subject: Re: TSPS monitoring...
Yes folks... It's true. There is definitely more than 1% monitoring.
IHM
------------------------------
Date: 2 September 1981 09:13-EDT
From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU MIT-MC AT>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V1 #7
The problem of AT&T switching to the use of satellite circuits for
long distance phone calls is an interesting one. On the one hand,
satellite circuits are cheaper than terrestrial microwave, and it
would be a shame to deprive the majority of callers who are only
sending voice traffic from benefitting from the use of these lower
cost circuits. On the other hand, it causes problems for data
communications users who haven't upgraded from Bisynch to SDLC or
HDLC.
In some European countries, sending data over voice lines is illegal;
this insures that the PTT can make whatever changes it wants to the
voice lines without worrying about the impact on data users.
Another alternative would be the creation of a circuit switched
digital network such as in Germany; as a separate network like Telex,
it could be restricted to terrestrial lines only. AT&T proposed such
a service 4 years ago, but it has been held up before the FCC.
Once the CCIS network is completely in place it might be possible to
designate a certain line as one for which all outgoing long distance
calls should be routed only over terrestrial circuits (for a premium
charge of course); at present, however, there is no simple way to
convey to the toll switch that kind of information about the
originating line.
None of these alternatives is particularly attractive, but the shift
to newer protocols is likely the cheapest and best solution in the
long run.
Marvin Sirbu
------------------------------
Date: 2 Sep 1981 1158-PDT (Wednesday)
From: Lauren at UCLA-SECURITY (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: bill-paying
I subscribed to the Allstate Savings version of electronic
pay-by-phone bill paying about a year ago, but eventually dropped it.
Sounds almost identical to the UCB (oops, excuse me, First Interstate
Bank) version.
Allstate originally was charging $.10/transaction, but when they added
a monthly fee also, I dropped it. While you can usually pay your
utilities and such through such a service, there are always enough
places that will not accept bill-call checks that you STILL end up
writing checks every month. I find it to be more of a pain to try
reconcile TWO "checking" accounts than just one; it was just getting
to be a hassle. Also, I felt a bit uncomfortable with the system, in
that I had no way of KNOWING that those checks went out on time. If
they hadn't I would have had little recourse other than TRY blame
Allstate.
It's a nice hack, but not really worthwhile yet, in my opinion.
--Lauren--
------------------------------
Date: 2 Sep 1981 1206-PDT (Wednesday)
From: Lauren at UCLA-SECURITY (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: TSPS, The Speaking Clock, Data Throughput
To be a little more specific, TSPS provides a "higher-order"
concentration point for local switching offices, enabling these
offices to act as if they were more "advanced" than they really are!
These days, most metro crossbar and step offices are routed through
TSPS for all operator functions and most long distance (intertoll)
calling.
Operators at TSPS positions have "cordless" consoles. When you call
such an operator, your number (and the number you are calling if
you're making a 0+ Extended DDD call) appear on his/her console.
That's the reason operators hardly ever ask you for your number
anymore when you make collect or person to person calls and the like.
All functions are controlled through pushbuttons -- trunk routing is
automatic. If you "flash" for an operator during a call that was set
up via a TSPS operator, you will NOT necessarily be returned to the
same operator, but will get the first available position, the display
of which will immediately show the complete status of your call.
Infinite detail about TSPS may be found in back issues of the Bell
System Technical Journal. I am sure there was at least one special
issue on the subject.
---
Gee, that number USED to be good for the Speaking Clock -- but I guess
it was changed over the years. Oh well. The only other interesting
number I can remember offhand from my travels is for Dial-A-Disc in
Cardiff, South Wales (England):
011+44+222+06
Of course, that was a number of years ago as well...
---
I have NO sympathy for the people screaming about data throughput on
satellite circuits. I have been reading these articles in the various
rags for months that have been complaining about this, and many of
them are a joke. They suggest such solutions as getting private line
service and demanding terrestrial links. Ha ha ha. I wonder how long
(or even IF) you could get away with that. Telco can provide service
via whatever routes it wants, as long as the fundamental service
levels are met -- this does not include catering to every obsolete
protocol.
Bell gave the data world fair warning that the changes were coming up
-- I think the best solution would be for people to get on the ball
and upgrade now instead of clinging to the past. Satellites will be
taking an increasing load of the communications load as the years go
by, and the propagation delays involved are a fact of life.
--Lauren--
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
**********************
-------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <
[email protected]>
of
http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/
This Usenet Oldnews Archive
article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:
1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.
2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:
The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996
Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.
