TELECOM Digest     Wed, 25 May 94 13:30:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 248

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Equal Access is Not Available Here (Jeff Shaver)
    FedEx Tracking Software "Covers Up" Mistakes? (Alan Boritz)
    Software For Fraud Detection? (Sandra Oudshoff)
    Listing of Telecom EZines (Bob Allison)
    Book Review: "From Somaphore to Satellite" by ITU (Bob Allison)
    RBOCS and Video Remote Learning in Schools? (Gerry Moersdorf)
    Info Highway to Bypass Poor and Minorities (Anthony Wright)
    OSI Computer Based Training Package Available (Tom Worthington)
    ANI and Class of Service (was Re: 800 Number Billback) (Danny Burstein)
    Worldwide Areacode/Telex/Internet List Available by FTP (Paul Robinson)
    Miss Manners Replies to Call Return (Clarinet/AP via Steve Cogorno)
    Leaving a Message (Carl Moore)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and GEnie.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

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

                 * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu *

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

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jeff.Shaver@f615.n14.z1.fidonet.org (Jeff Shaver)
Date: 25 May 94 09:51:28 -0500
Subject: Equal Access is Not Available Here
Organization: FidoNet Nameserver/Gateway


My local telephone company is an independent cooperative.  I have very
few complaints regarding their service as a whole, except that they
won't offer equal access.  I can't even use the 10XXX codes, or
1-700-555-4141!  The only way to access a carrier other than AT&T is
to use calling cards, and that *really* adds up.

I've really bugged them about this in the last several years, but they
tell me the long distance carriers are "all the same, they all just
lease AT&T's lines."  I've called and written letters to the major
carriers encouraging them to make the first move, but to no avail.  I
know for a fact that my telco's equipment _has_ the capability to do
this, and US West customers only a few minutes away can access the
other carriers.

*Who* has to initiate the process -- my telco or the other carriers?
Who can I write to or call to complain?  I realize there are costs
involved, but I'm not willing to wait until December 31, 1999 (a
generic date, as quoted by an MCI representative).  Will the Public
Service Commission do anything about it?  Anything you can tell me
would be very helpful!


Jeff Shaver    jeff.shaver@f615.n14.z1.fidonet.org

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

Subject: FedEx Tracking Software "Covers Up" Mistakes?
From: drharry!aboritz@uunet.UU.NET (Alan Boritz)
Date: Wed, 25 May 94 09:39:14 EDT
Organization: Harry's Place - Mahwah NJ - +1 201 934 0861


You've probably seen the commercial where the screaming obnoxious boss
is one-upp'ed by his clever secretary who uses the Federal Express
package tracking software to verify delivery of priority next-day
deliveries.  Well, it seems that if Federal Express screws up your
package delivery, the tracking software will be the LAST place you'll
find out about it.

I checked on a pretty important package destined for Oklahoma City,
OK, today.  As of 8:30 a.m. (EST) they only had it leaving Newark as
of last night.  When there was no update as of 11:30 a.m (the
"guaranteed" delivery time), I called a customer service rep and found
out that the package was actually in Denver, CO.  The tracking
software support people couldn't understand why none of the activity
since the previous night (showing the actual location of the package)
wasn't available.

Federal Express's high-tech tracking software surely hasn't improved
customer's efficient or cost-effective use of their services.  If they
mishandle your package, they'll keep the information from you and
won't make good on their guarantees.  Data censorship to only give
good news and nothing bad (at least in print)?  You bet. <grin>


aboritz%drharry@uunet.uu.net  or  uunet!drharry!aboritz
Harry's Place (drharry.UUCP) - Mahwah NJ USA - +1-201-934-0861

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

Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 11:23:02 GMT
From: A.M.Oudshoff@research.ptt.nl (Sandra Oudshoff)
Subject: Software For Fraud Detection?
Organization: PTT Research, Groningen, The Netherlands


Hi,

I'm looking for information about software available (freeware or
commercial) that performs fraud detection functionalities, particularly
in the area of telecommunications. If you have any information that
you think might be helpful, please share this information with me.

Thanks a lot in advance,


Sandra Oudshoff
replies preferably by e-mail to:   a.m.oudshoff@research.ptt.nl

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

From: boba@gagme.wwa.com (Bob Allison)
Subject: Listing of Telecom EZines
Date: 25 May 1994 09:17:38 -0500
Organization: WorldWide Access - Chicago Area Internet Services 312-282-8605


Here is a list of EZines that are related to telecom, either
specifically or generally.  They cover things like telecom privacy,
government telecom policy, etc.

    ______     __                             ___________   _
 /_  __/__  / /__  _________  ____ ___     / ____/__  /  (_)___  ___  _____
  / / / _ \/ / _ \/ ___/ __ \/ __ `__ \   / __/    / /  / / __ \/ _ \/ ___/
 / / /  __/ /  __/ /__/ /_/ / / / / / /  / /___   / /__/ / / / /  __(__  )
/_/  \___/_/\___/\___/\____/_/ /_/ /_/  /_____/  /____/_/_/ /_/\___/____/
   A N D   R E L A T E D   E L E C T R O N I C   N E W S L E T T E R S

   Here are some interesting electronic magazines and newsletters that
are currently available.  They cover telecom from the specific to the
general, on such topics as telecom privacy and government policy to
electronic communities and networks.

   Generally if an ezine is available on a news group, the publisher
prefers it to be obtained that way, especially if you are just looking for
a sample to read.


     EFFECTOR | The Electronic Frontier Foundation's membership newsletter.
              | It covers telecom policy updates.
              | E-mail: send request to brown@eff.org
              |    FTP: ftp.eff.org
              | Usenet: comp.org.eff
              | Gopher: gopher.eff.org
              |
      EDUPAGE | Covers information technology and media.  Three times a week.
              | Short summaries of media articles.
              | E-Mail: listproc@educom.edu
              |         SUB EDUPAGE YOUR NAME
              |
     COMPUTER | Covers happenings in cyberspace, such as government policy.
  UNDERGROUND | E-Mail: listserv@uiucvmd.bitnet
       DIGEST |         listserv@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu
              |         SUB CUDIGEST YOUR NAME
              | Usenet: comp.society.cu-digest
              |    FTP: etext.archive.umich.edu:/pub/CuD/
              |
         HOTT | Gathers the latest info on computer, communications, and
              | electronics technologies from trade magazines, newspapers and
              | net resources.
              | E-mail: listserv@ucsd.edu
              |         SUBSCRIBE HOTT-LIST
              |
PRIVACY FORUM | Bit and pieces on threats to privacy.
              | E-mail: privacy-request@vortex.com
              |    FTP: ftp.vortex.com
              | Gopher: gopher.vortex.com
              |
     NETWORKS | Focuses on the 'community' more tha technology.
  & COMMUNITY | E-mail: rre-request@weber.ucsd.edu
              |         SUBSCRIBE YOUR NAME)
              | Gopher: gopher.well.sf.ca.us
              |         gopher.nlc-bnc.ca
              |
 COM NET NEWS | Recently introduced newsletter on community networking on the
              | infobahn.
              | E-mail: contact rbryant@hydra.unm.edu


boba@gagme.wwa.com
Please vote for rec.arts.ascii - CFV is available on news.announce.newgroups,
news.groups, alt.ascii-art, rec.humor, comp.graphics, alt.bbs, and others.

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

From: boba@gagme.wwa.com (Bob Allison)
Subject: Book Review: "From Somaphore to Satellite" by ITU
Date: 25 May 1994 09:08:43 -0500
Organization: WorldWide Access - Chicago Area Internet Services 312-282-8605


   For those of you interested in the history of Trans-Atlantic
cobles, or the history of telecom, there's a book you might want to
search for.  My copy is rather old, so if there was no update to it;
you may have to look for an old edition.

   The book is called 'From Somaphore to Satellite'.  It was published
by the ITU (International Telecommunications Union) in 1963.  It
covers everything up to that year.

   It's a big format, 344 page volume.  The parts covering the history
of the Trans-Atlantic cable were very interesting, at least to me.
The book has some interesting old pictures too.

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

Please vote for rec.arts.ascii - CFV is available on news.announce.newgroups,
news.groups, alt.ascii-art, rec.humor, comp.graphics, alt.bbs, and others.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Perhaps you or someone else with a copy
of the book would like to quote some of the more interesting excerpts here
in the Digest. Please send them in.   PAT]

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

From: gerry@aisun.aiinet.com (Gerry Moersdorf)
Subject: RBOCS & Video Remote learning in Schools?
Date: 25 May 1994 13:19:36 -0400
Organization: Applied Innovation, Inc.
Reply-To: gerry@aiinet.com


Does anyone have an opinion on what the RBOCS are trying to do by
pushing TV remote learning grants and equipment to school systems?
The schools in our district don't even have telephones in classrooms
let alone a LAN for a client server teaching tool.  To me the priorities
are all turned around.  What possible business could RBOCS build with the
"poor" school districts?


Gerry Moersdorf   --- Applied Innovation Inc  gerry@aiinet.com
614-798-2000        Dublin, Ohio 43017    The datacom pbx guys


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You raise an excellent point, and I would
refer interested readers to a related article which is presently circu-
lating in alt.dcom.telecom which discusses the 'information highway' and
how it seems to be bypassing a lot of poorer communities in the opinion
of the author of the article. I am attaching it as the next item in this
issue of the Digest. I do not agree entirely with the conclusions of the
article, but it is worth thinking about.   PAT]

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

From: cme@access2.digex.net (Center for Media Education)
Subject: Info Highway to Bypass Poor and Minorities, Groups Reveal
Date: 25 May 1994 00:03:20 GMT
Organization: Washington, DC


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Forwarded from alt.dcom.telecom FYI.  PAT]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: MAY 23, 1994

FROM: Center for Media Education (CME)
 Consumer Federation of America (CFA)
 Media Access Project (MAP)
 National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
 National Council of La Raza (NCLR)
 Office of Communication, United Church of Christ (UCC)

For more information, see contact persons listed at the end of this note.

     "INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY" COULD BYPASS
       LOW INCOME AND MINORITY COMMUNITIES

Consumer and Civil Rights Groups Urge FCC To Prevent "Electronic
Redlining" by Baby Bells

WASHINGTON, DC -- A coalition of consumer and civil rights groups
today called upon the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
outlaw "electronic redlining" as local telephone companies start to
construct the "information superhighway."  In two petitions filed
today, the coalition submitted to the Commission research documenting
that these companies are designing their advanced comunications
systems to bypass many low income and minority communities.  The
research was based on an examination of applications from each of the
Regional Bell Operating Companies which have filed video dialtone
proposals with the FCC.

"Our analysis reveals a clear pattern," concluded Jeffrey Chester,
Executive Director of the Center for Media Education.  "Low income and
minority neighborhoods are being systematically underrepresented in
these plans."

In their petitions, the groups urged the FCC to clarify the rules that
prevent such practices and to issue a policy statement reaffirming the
Commission's commitment to the goals of universal service and
nondiscriminatory deployment.  "At each phase of video dialtone
deployment," the coalition argued, "providers should be required to
make that service available to a proportionate number of lower income
and minority customers."  The groups also called on the FCC to revise
its policies to ensure greater public participation in the development
of these new communications networks.  For example, they urged the
Commission to require telephone companies to hold public hearings with
local officials and consumers in order to get permission to provide
video dialtone services.

"Right now," explained Bradley Stillman, Legislative Counsel of the
Consumer Federation of America, "the phone companies get to decide
when, where and how these networks will be built and paid for without
any input from the communities that will be served by them.  That is
not the way we deployed either telephone service or cable TV, which
are merged in the video dialtone proposals."  Added CME's Jeffrey
Chester, "These video dialtone networks could become the primary
communications system for millions of Americans.  They must be made
available in an equitable and nondiscriminatory manner."

"The building of the information superhighway is the civil rights
issue of the 21st century," stated Anthony Pharr of the Office of
Communication, United Church of Christ.  "As in the banking and
insurance fields, this sort of discrimination is patently wrong.  It
hurts the communities that need help the most."

"Redlining within the telecommunications industry is a front-line
challenge to the civil rights community and must be addressed in the
national telecommunications legislation now before Congress," added
Wade Henderson, Director of the Washington Bureau of the NAACP.

The research compared census tract data to maps and other documents
submitted to the FCC by the local telephone companies.  At least two
cities for each of four Baby Bells were analyzed: the Ameritech
applications in Indianapolis, IN and Chicago, IL; Bell Atlantic
applications in Toms River, NJ and the Washington, DC metropolitan
area; Pacific Telesis applications for the California areas of Orange
County, San Diego, and the South Bay of San Francisco; and U.S. West
applications for Portland, OR, Minneapolis, MN, and Denver, CO.  These
networks would intitially reach approximately 4 million homes.
Applications for the construction of these and other video dialtone
platforms are currently under review at the FCC.

The analysis revealed two patterns.  In some cases entire counties
were bypassed, while more affluent neighboring counties were selected
for service.  For example, Bell Atlantic chose the wealthier suburbs
of northern Virginia and Montgomery County, Maryland rather than the
District of Columbia and Prince George's County, Maryland both of
which contain large minority populations.  In other cases, the
unserved areas comprise a section carved out of the middle of a city.
For example, as one of the petitions explained, "The map of U.S.
West's scheduled deployment in Denver depicts a large slice running
through the center of the city where video dialtone facilities will
not be initially constructed.  Lower income and/or minority persons
are heavily concentrated in the excluded area."

A separate computer analysis of Ameritech's proposal for the Chicago
area, undertaken by the Office of Communication, United Church of
Christ, led to similar conclusions.

The Center for Media Education's "Future of Media" Project supported
the demographic research of Dr.  Mark Cooper, Research Director of the
Consumer Federation of America.

Groups supporting the petition include the Center for Media Education
(CME), Consumer Federation of America (CFA), National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), National Council of La Raza
(NCLR), and the Office of Communication, United Church of Christ
(UCC).  The Institute for Public Representation, Georgetown University
Law Center (IPR), and the Media Access Project (MAP) provided the
legal counsel in preparing the petitions to the FCC.

The issue of electronic redlining is expected to be discussed by the
Senate Commerce Committee in hearings sheduled for tomorrow, May 24.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Jeff Chester, Center for Media Education  (202) 628-2620
Bradley Stillman, Consumer Federation of America (202) 387-6121
Anthony Pharr, Office of Communication, United Church of Christ
       (202) 331-4265
Andrew Schwartzman, Media Access Project  (202) 232-4300

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

Anthony E. Wright    cme@access.digex.net
Coordinator, Future of Media Project  Center for Media Education
1511 K St, NW, #518, Wash., DC 20005  Tel: 202-628-2620  Fax: 202-628-2554

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

From: tomw@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Tom Worthington)
Subject: OSI Computer Based Training Package Available
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 05:22:01 GMT


THE ESSENTIAL GOSIP EDUCATION PROGRAM STANDARDS AUSTRALIA

The Essential GOSIP is an interactive training and development program
which provides a framework for developing a plan for GOSlP (Government
Open Systems Interconnection Profile) implementation.

THE ESSENTIAL GOSIP PROGRAM

Assists in the planning, development, implementation and management of
adopting GOSIP within your organisation.

The interactive GOSIP educational material provided allows the user to
work through the three key GOSIP planning stages. These stages - Where
are we now?, Where do we want to be? and How do we get there? are as
used in the Commonwealth Information Technology Planning Guidelines
(CITP).

A wide range of supporting theory and research information is
available on line:

* a library covering more than seventy topics
* a full glossary of terms
* case studies from Australia and overseas
* extra resources - such as access to on-line documents.

THE PURCHASE OPTIONS

The Essential GOSIP is available for purchase as a single user licence,
a site licence for up to eight users or as a customised program.

To obtain a free demonstration disk of the Essential GOSIP package,
contact:

    Standards Australia
    PO Box 1055, Strathfield NSW 2135
    Phone (02)7464600 Fax (02)7463333

    X.400:     S=BASSETT;O=SAA;P=SA;A=TELEMEMO;C=AU
    Internet:  bassett@saa.sa.telememo.au


Posted by TOM WORTHINGTON, Director of Information Management Policy
HQ Australian Defence Force, Fax: +61 6 2653601
<T.Worthington@CM-DIMP.HQADF.defencenet.gov.au>
G=T;S=Worthington;OU=CM-DIMP;O=HQADF;P=ausgovdefencenet;A=telememo;C=au

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

From: dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein)
Subject: ANI and Class of Service (was Re: 800 Number Billback)
Date: 25 May 1994 09:40:51 -0400


In <telecom14.247.18@eecs.nwu.edu> steven@sgb.oau.org (Steven Bradley)
writes:

> Well, here is my two cents worth ... if you really want to aggravate
> these legal con-artists, do this:

> Call the service as much as you want and as often as you can from PAY
> PHONES and see how easily they (don't) get their money then!

[some more stuff deleted}

to which our Esteemed Moderator added, in part:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What actually happens is that the
> Information Provider has a database of pay telephone numbers and
> yes, you will waste ten cents of his money dialing him and getting
> him to answer but you certainly will not get him to part with any
> of his valuable 'information'.

[stories of calling various 800-to-billing services deleted]

to which dannyb@panix.com explains:

Not quite. The usual technique for sorting out incoming calls is to
have the telco provide teh phone number, -and- the 'class of service'.
This is part of feature group d and might be in 'c' as well.

This lets the tele-sleaze opertor know whether the call is coming from
a residential phone, a business, a telco coin phone, a cocot (if
properly registered at the local office), and a few other designations
such as prisons and, if I recall corectly, phones at a hospital.

BTW, some groups -do- use ANI for a related purpose, namely to reduce
'excess' calls to their number. (Remember the huge volume of calls
that were sent to Falwell's number?)

A good example of this is the 1-800-WHY-GUNS setup. If you call it you
get a recording describing the need for gun control, etc. Call it a
second time and you get the same message. Call it a -third- time and
you get a message saying something like 'because <descriptive
derogatory terms deleted> try to jam our phone lines, we have to limit
you to three calls to our number. Please call xxx-yyyy in the future'

Calling it a fourth time gets you a busy or intercept.

BTW #2: There is, sensibly enough, a time-out on the restriction. I
just called them again from a phone line which had been blocked in the
past and got through. Seems they figured out that a two week hold on
calls was a good compromise.


dannyb@panix.com (or dburstein@mcimail.com)

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

Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 13:05:36 EDT
From: Paul Robinson <TELEX@TDR.COM>
Reply-To: Paul Robinson <TELEX@TDR.COM>
Subject: Worldwide Areacode/Telex/Internet List Available by FTP
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA


I am in the process of final submission of a replacement document for
my Internet RFC 1394.  This document contains a list of all
international as well as US Area codes, telex area codes in both
international and F.36 formats, time zones, data network numbers,
large Internet Gateways and Internet Base-Level domain names.  I would
like to request comments on the and content of the information (e.g.
is there related information I should have considered adding) as well
as any inaccuracies in the information I have provided.  This document
is, in my opinion, essentially finished but I would like to offer
members of the Internet Community the opportunity to view the document
and point out any possible errors.

The document is 141K in size uncompressed and is obtainable through
FTP at:

ftp.digex.net: /pub/access/tdarcos/newrfc.txt

or in compressed forms of: newrfc.txt.gz, newrfc.txt.Z, newrfc.zip and
newrfc.zoo, so you can grab whichever one is easiest to handle; the
compressed forms must be extracted with BINARY mode ftp.

Those without FTP access should write back to this address; the
FTPMAIL server at decwrl is probably too slow to provide a response in
time.  Indicate if you can accept a MIME coded document or UUENCODE,
or if you need plain text.

I intend to submit this document as a proposed RFC by June 7, e.g. in
a little over one week unless I receive reports of a "showstopping"
error in the document.  Corrections and comments will be appreciated.

Please feel free to forward this note elsewhere.  Thank you for your
interest and attention.


Paul Robinson

------------------------------
To: telecom@coyote.channel1.com
Subject: Miss Manners Objects to Being Used



On Wednesday, May 25 in issue 14-248 of this Digest, a reprint of an
article by Miss Manners appeared as item 11 of 12.  Submitted by Steve
Cogorno, it originally appeared in Clarinet and apparently Steve had
not obtained permission to reprint it here. I made the erroneous
assumption he had. Although it ran intact, with some added commentary
by Steve, and the copyright notices, etc were all intact, with credit
given to Clarient and the syndicate which distributes Miss Manners,
Brad Templeton of Clarinet says it should not have appeared in TELECOM
Digest without his permission.

In a note to both Steve Cogorno and myself, Mr. Templeton demanded
that the article be removed from circulation. He also sent along a
little pre-printed apology form letter which everyone involved is
supposed to publish in a conspicuous place in the same manner in which
the original article was published. Steve sent me his copy of the
notice to be run under his name, and it is identical to the one sent
directly to me. Note that it includes a blurb on how one might subscribe
to Clarinet if one wishes to do so.

So, article 11 of 12, issue 248, volume 14 is being overwritten in the
archives with this note of explanation, and I must ask all readers to
likewise remove the Miss Manners article on 'Call Return' and substitute
this message in its place. There now follows Mr. Templeton's suggested
notice, for the record submitted by Steve Cogorno and myself. He says
this will serve as our pennace for violating his copyright.

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

From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno)
Subject: ClariNet News
Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 20:08:07 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: brad@alto.clarinet.com

Recently I posted an article from Miss Manners regarding the use of
Call Return to this newsgroup from the ClariNet electronic newspaper.
This was a copyrighted item that I should not have posted without
permission.  It has been deleted. Those wishing to know how to get
such articles legitimately for their site can contact ClariNet at
info@clarinet.com.

Steve
cogorno@netcom.com
#608 Merrill * 200 McLaughlin Drive * Santa Cruz, CA 95064-1015


From: TELECOM Digest Editor <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu>
Subject: ClariNet News
Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 12:00:00 CDT
Cc: brad@alto.clarinet.com

Recently I posted an article from Miss Manners regarding the use of
Call Return to this newsgroup from the ClariNet electronic newspaper.
This was a copyrighted item that I should not have posted without
permission.  It has been deleted. Those wishing to know how to get
such articles legitimately for their site can contact ClariNet at
info@clarinet.com.

Patrick Townson

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

It would be best in the future I think if readers would simply refrain
 from sending me stuff that has appeared in Clarinet. There are lots
of other sources for the same news.  Thank you.

PAT
------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 May 94 16:30:56 EDT
From: Carl Moore <cmoore@ARL.MIL>
Subject: Leaving a Message


I saw the blurb about call-return.  I don't have that feature.
However, I wonder what sort of calls are getting filtered out when
they reach the answering service operator at my Delaware and Maryland
telephone numbers.  I know there are calls going to there from both
numbers, because they cost me on my phone bills (message units in
Delaware and tolls in Maryland).  Pos- sibly those are unwanted sales
calls that get filtered out, but I had a case several years ago where
someone reached that answering service and left only a message that
(making up the name) "George Smith called".  I had no way of knowing
who that was, so I could do nothing until that person called again a
week later and left a telephone number as well.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #248
******************************

