TELECOM Digest     Fri, 29 Jul 94 14:20:30 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 338

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Measured and Unlimited Service at Same Residence (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Measured and Unlimited Service at Same Residence (Doug Granzow)
    Re: Measured and Unlimited Service at Same Residence (Stan Schwartz)
    Re: Measured and Unlimited Service at Same Residence (Mark E. Daniel)
    Re: Measured and Unlimited Service at Same Residence (John Higdon)
    Having a Rotary Extension on a Pay Phone (Jonathan Welch)
    Re: Secret Life of Bank Machines: Simple Tech Explanations (Rich Ahrens)
    Re: What's Wrong With My Caller-ID-With-Name? (Ry Jones)
    Re: What's Wrong With My Caller-ID-With-Name? (Stephen Denny)
    Re: What's Wrong With My Caller-ID-With-Name? (Arnette P. Schultz)
    Re: What's Wrong With My Caller-ID-With-Name? (Clifton T. Sharp)

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: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: Measured and Unlimited Service at Same Residence
Date: 28 Jul 1994 22:41:04 GMT
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc.
Reply-To: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette)


In <telecom14.335.8@eecs.nwu.edu>, mmathews@hadron.wellfleet.com (Mat
Mathews) writes:

> I just recently ordered a second line at my apartment for computer
use.  NYNEX tells me, however, that it IS NOT POSSIBLE to have
measured and unlimited service at the same residence.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:  About the only time you can get telco
> to install one of each on the same premises is if there are two or more
> distinct persons sharing the premises, and each claims that he is in
> exclusive control of and is the exclusive user of his particular service;

This is not true in all areas.  In Washington State and in California,
the tariffs are written such that both businesses and residences can
have any mix of measured and unmeasured service at the same location
(well, unmeasured business service does not exist in California, so
the question is moot in that case).  California did have a prohibition
against this similar to New York's until around 1991 when they changed
it for residence customers.  I've had a mix of measured and unmeasured
in both states, and never had a problem ordering it since it is
explicitly permitted by tariff.

> Then there are the folks with semi-public payphones on their
> business premises.  On those, the subscriber can have an 'answer-only
> extension' installed if desired, which is a phone without a dial or
> touchtone pad, purely for answering purposes if the semi-public coin
> phone gets an incoming call. Telco refuses to do it, and the
> sophisticated subscriber then says, 'well, I want an answer-only
> extension for the payphone and I want you to terminate it on my
> existing multi-line phone on an idle pair ...'. Now telco is stuck
> because your existing multi-line phone has touchtone or dial on it of
> course. If a rotary dial, they just won't do it; if a touchtone they
> *will* but in the process they reverse the polarity on that particular
> pair to disable your ability to dial out on that line regardless of
> having a touch tone pad on the phone or not.

Ah, Pat, you are showing your age here :-) Much of what you said above
is no longer true, although it used to be.  Back in the "no dialtone
until initial rate is deposited" days of payphones, it was necessary
for telco to put in payphone extensions with no dial pads or with
polarity-reversed touchtone pads, but no more.  Virtually all areas
have the coin collection controlled by the CO -- the phone merely
reports to the CO how many coins have been deposited, and the CO then
decides whether or not to let the call go through.  Because of this,
there is no problem in connecting any sort of phone, rotary or tone,
to a payphone line.  If you try to dial a local or long-distance call
directly, a recording comes on to tell you to "please deposit $x.xx".
Of course, you can't do this from the non-coin extension, but you are
perfectly able to receive calls, or place emergency, toll-free, or
calling card calls from the extension.  A polarity-reversed tone phone
wouldn't prevent you from dialing anyway, since most (all?) touch-tone
telephones manufactured in the last ten years or so don't care about
the polarity and will generate tones either way.

My experience with Pacific Bell is that they no longer will install
extension jacks for semi-public phones.  Of course, there is no
technical reason to stop you from doing this yourself.  They won't
like it if they find out, although I don't know why since it does not
allow you to place free calls.  However, I used to live in a place
that had one that had been installed many years ago (pre-divestiture)
when a tariff was in place for this, and we were allowed to officially
keep it since we were grandfathered.  

Another unusual arrangement we had was to have two payphones on each
of two lines.  When one of them was stolen, we called Pacific Bell to
have it replaced.  The people in Repair just would not believe that we
had had two payphones on the same line (they correctly showed that we
were paying for only two semi-public coin lines, and therefore
concluded that we were entitled to only two coin phones).  They
thought we had installed them ourselves or had put a COCOT on the
line, but all of the phones were indeed genuine Pacific Bell coin
telephones that they had installed themselves.  Since it was no longer
possible to order multiple coin phones on the same line, we had not
even been charged for the extra phones for several years.  They
finally talked to an old-timer in repair that could vaguely remember
that this arrangement had at one time been allowed, so they didn't
send the phone police out to get the other extra one, but they would
not replace the one that had been stolen.  This was all around 1989 or
so.


Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There once was this cocky young man who
knew everything there was to know about phones, around 1956 or so. His
uncle operated a Walgreen Agency drugstore in Whiting, Indiana. The
drugstore had a phone at the front counter, and a phone at the pharmacy
in back, plus a pay phone. Seems to me the phone number was Whiting 89
or something like that; it was before automatic dialing. There was also
a Genuine Bell payphone -- in a booth with a door that closed on the
front for the privacy of the person making the call. The booth had a
little seat inside. The payphone was something like Whiting 9285. It
was a ground-start type line, and depositing a five cent coin in the
right hand (of three, 5/10/25 cent) slot tripped a little lever which
sent the line to ground for just the instant needed to activate it. 
Deposit the five cents and battery would come on the line followed
a few seconds to a minute later by an operator asking 'number please'.

The phone at the pharmacy counter was an interesting multi-line deal
with a hold button and five buttons for lines. The pharmacy had its
own private number in addition to Whiting 89 for the store itself. This
phone had just a blank front with no dial of any kind since that 
sort of phone service was not available in Whiting yet. 

This smart kid, he says, "Uncle Tom, you oughta have an extension from
the payphone back here so you could answer it when it rings instead of
having to run to the front and answer only to find out its some teenage
girl calling to see if her boyfriend is sitting at the fountain drinking
a Coke." Uncle Tom thought that was a good idea, so the smart kid sets
about wiring it up. From in back where all the phones terminate anyway
he just runs a wire to the control box which handles the multi-line phone
at the pharmacy and pops the payphone on one of the line buttons. To be
clever, he takes still another of the unused line buttons (there were five
to begin with and only two actual phone lines [Whiting 89 and whatever 
the number was for the pharmacy counter] there, so that left three buttons
to play with) and adjusts the little spring-loaded ball bearings under-
neath -- the ones that slide back and forth causing one button to pop up
when another is pressed down -- on the last button. Now instead of staying
down when pressed, it pops right back up. Take the pair associated there
and send one side to ground while the other side is attached to one side
of the pair serving the payphone. Now when Uncle Tom would lift the phone
receiver and press the key for the line serving as the payphone extension
he would hear nothing -- all payphones in those days were ground start
lines -- but as soon as he pressed and released the button next to it on
the phone, ground was applied to the payphone. Presently the operator would
answer and take the request; no need to give her five cents.  

Then one day the Telephone Inspector came to the premises. A normally
cheerful, very rotund fellow from years of eating well on his phone company
expense account with a large, bulbous and very red nose caused no doubt
by all the iced tea he consumed every day, his mission was to protect
the company's interests. The phreaks of those days thought he knew too
much for his own good, and his feeling toward smart-alecky children was
mutual.  A few minutes of investigation with him prodding the innards of
the control box in back and the five-line phone told him what he needed
to know. "Ummm hmmm," he muttered to himself, looking over the top of
his spectacles which were perched on his nose as he prodded around the
inside of the phone. The cocky kid is hiding in the storeroom in back,
carefully peeking out the door watching his work get undone. Inspector
warns Uncle Tom not to let this happen again or his service will get
disconnected. "I am supposed to report this to the manager, but maybe
there is a way to overlook it ..."  Uncle Tom understands, and something
passes from his hand to the Inspector's hand as they 'shake hands on
it'. The Inspector lifts the phone and when the operator asks 'number
please' he says 'give me the Business Office'. He chats with someone
there and reports the 'problem' has been corrected. 'A couple of lines
that were intermittently shorting out ...'. 

On his way out, the Inspector sees the cocky kid who has by now left
by the back door and is innocently standing on the sidewalk in front.
"Listen, you see anyone messing with the phone back there?". Nope says
the kid, but not very convincingly. "Well if I catch the little bastard 
whose handiwork that was I'll whip his ass. And you tell him that!" The 
kid assures the Inspector he will watch carefully to make sure 'no one
messes around with the phone again' ...  PAT]

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

From: doug.granzow@cynosure.clark.net (Doug Granzow)
Subject: Re: Measured and Unlimited Service at Same Residence
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 05:04:15 GMT
Organization: Cynosure Online - 410-781-6271


> To get back to your original question, no they won't
> install metered service at your premises then turn around and give
> you a way to bypass the meter. Makes sense to me.    PAT]

Doesn't make sense to me.  Does it somehow follow that if I add a
second line to my house, that I will make more phone calls?  There are
three lines in the house I live in -- the two extra are for incoming
calls (I run a BBS). One phone line has unlimited local calls, the
other two carry a nine cent charge for each local call. (Two are in my
name: one unlimited, one measured.  One is in another name: measured.)
Bell Atlantic has never had a problem with this arrangement. Their
only problem is that since one of my lines is a foreign exchange, it's
billed seperately from my other line.  So, three phone bills arrive at
this house every month, and three sets of phone books arrive each
year.  Wasteful on Bell's part, but they don't charge me more, so I
don't complain.


Doug Granzow   dig@cynosure.clark.net

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

From: stans@panix.com (Stan Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Measured and Unlimited Service at Same Residence
Date: 29 Jul 1994 09:51:27 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC


Mat Mathews (mmathews@hadron.wellfleet.com) wrote:

> I just recently ordered a second line at my apartment for computer
> use.  Since my company provides an 800 number for the dial-in line, I
> decided to order a measured-service line.  NYNEX tells me, however,
> that it IS NOT POSSIBLE to have measured and unlimited service at the
> same residence.  Why is this?  The sales rep said something about the
> impossibility of wiring such a setup.  It seems to me that every
> network interface should be separately configurable.  I know that they
> would never see a dime on the measured line if there is an unlimited
> line there too, but surely such a configuration is not impossible.
> Anybody know?

NYNEX discontinued the policy of allowing Flat Rate and Untimed
Message Rate residence services to be installed in the same house more
than ten years ago.  At that time, my parents had that setup exactly,
but NYNEX (NY Tel at the time -- it was even Ma Bell!) allowed anyone
who already had the service to continue with it.  If you moved or
changed your service, you lost the grandfather rights. My parents (and
most of the other parents in the neighborhood) had it and it worked
out nicely -- the flat rate line was the "kids" line, assuming that
all our friends would be within the local calling area.  The other
line was what we used for extended area and all incoming calls,
keeping the flat rate line free for those "free" calls.  Most people
went so far as to have the flat rate line non-published, so they could
avoid the problem of incoming callsieing up the outgoing line.


Stan

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jul 94 02:10:12 EDT
From: mark@legend.akron.oh.us (Mark E Daniel)
Subject: Re: Measured and Unlimited Service at Same Residence


I don't know why they think we're all stupid.  It has absolutly
nothing to do with *wiring*, except maybe the wires that make the
Phone Company ramble out useless answers to questions just to get
customers off their backs.

It's basically that The Phone Company doesn't want you having
measured service and unlimited service and making all your calls on
your unlimited line, thus saving them of precious money they could be
making from you. *Cough*.

I *believe* the Ohio PUCO stopped Ameritech from using the same
practice here.  Perhaps getting your PUCO involved can provide you
with similar results.


mark@legend.akron.oh.us

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 00:11:45 -0700
From: john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon)
Subject: Re: Measured and Unlimited Service at Same Residence


mmathews@hadron.wellfleet.com (Mat Mathews) writes:

> I just recently ordered a second line at my apartment for computer
> use.  Since my company provides an 800 number for the dial-in line, I
> decided to order a measured-service line.  NYNEX tells me, however,
> that it IS NOT POSSIBLE to have measured and unlimited service at the
> same residence.  Why is this?

Probably because Nynex feels that this is a necessary way to extract
the last farthing from you. While I snort aplenty about Pac*Bell, at
least that company has absolutely no restrictions concerning mix and
match on classes of service.

In Pac*Bell territory, you may order ANY number of unmeasured,
measured, or business service at your residence. You may, if you like,
have one unmeasured line and twenty measured lines if that strikes
your fancy.  Furthermore, you may have them all part of a Commstar
(mini-Centrex) group.  In other words, you can make a local call on
your unmeasured line, transfer it to your measured line, and then talk
to your heart's content without incurring any local charges.

Somehow Pac*Bell manages to survive with some of the lowest rates in
the country AND have people "take advantage of them" by using
unmeasured lines for local calls and measured lines for BBSes and
other "incoming" purposes at home.

It never seemed odd to me to be able to order the type of service
needed without having a stack of screwy restrictions attached designed
to tilt the game table toward the service provider.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:

> To get back to your original question, no they won't install metered
> service at your premises then turn around and give you a way to bypass
> the meter. Makes sense to me.  PAT]

But not to me. If the telco is selling unmeasured service, is it not
done so expecting that the customer will make calls? Why does the
presence of a measured line disqualify the customer from enjoying the
service he is paying for on the unmeasured line? Does the presence of
a measured line encourage an inordinate outgoing use of the unmeasured
line?

If a customer has a measure line and an unmeasured line, he is getting
exactly what he is paying for: a more expensive line on which
unlimited local calls are possible; and a less expensive line on which
local calls are charged for. Reading anything else into the arrangement 
is removing the concept of a simple "payment for service received" arrange-
ment and puts it into a "the customer is only entitled to thus and so"
sort of rationing domain.

I am afraid that I have never been able to comprehend the reasoning
(other than greed or the desire to discourage having to provide extra
service in a neighborhood) behind the rules against mixing classes of
service in a residence. Pac*Bell's tariffs on this matter (or more
properly, the lack of them) indicates a dose of reality rarely seen in
the utility business.


John Higdon  |    P.O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115     |       FAX:
john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 09:15:57 -0500
From: Jonathan_Welch <JHWELCH@ecs.umass.edu>
Subject: Rotary Extension on Pay Phone


> On those, the subscriber can have an 'answer-only extension' installed
> if desired, which is a phone without a dial or touchtone pad, purely
> for answering purposes if the semi-public coin phone gets an incoming
> call.

At the yacht club I belong to there's a NET pay phone in the clubhouse.  
For years there was a jack in the steward's office so they could answer the 
phone more easily.  Due to storm damage the jack went dead and the
phone man who came out must have seen the rotary phone attached to it
while he was running a much better line.

I've tried dialing out from this extension with no luck, but I think
people have successfully placed collect calls via the operator.  Does
this sound right to you?


Jonathan Welch  VAX Systems Manager  Umass/Amherst  JHWELCH@ecs.umass.edu


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We know that in the olden days of rotary
dial, you could not have two or more phones on the same line *off hook
at the same time when trying to dial* since the signalling depended on
the rapid opening and closing of the loop causing rapid changes in the
electrical status of the line. These rapid changes, or pulses, were
counted to detirmine what number was desired. By having a second phone
off the hook at the same time, the loop would never go open, thus the
dialing would never be recognized. You can fix a rotary dial phone so
that it won't cut the dial tone by making a couple of simple wiring
changes inside the instrument which is probably what the repairman did
when he went to the clubhouse.  You can 'dial' a phone by tapping up and
down rapidly on the switchhook the desired number of times however. It
gets tricky making it accurate, but with some practice most people can
easily tap the hook ten times in the proper rythym to simulate dialing
the operator.  PAT]

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

From: rma@ahrens.irvine.dg.com (Rich Ahrens)
Subject: Re: Secret Life of Bank Machines: Simple Tech Explanations Sought
Date: 28 Jul 1994 19:39:56 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC


In article <telecom14.331.2@eecs.nwu.edu>, md@pstc3.pstc.brown.edu
(Michael P. Deignan) writes:

> Again, different systems vary. I've never seen a system that uses the
> method you describe, but then again, I only worked at regional banks.
> Many ATM's are intelligent and do a significant amount of processing
> on their own; all they need to do is send a small message back to the
> central computer to effect an account transaction and get a one-byte
> reply code back. For instance, a typical data stream to the central
> computer will consist of a transaction code, account number, and
> amount. So, you may be talking 20 bytes total going to the central
> computer, and then a one-byte reply code being returned (00=okay,
> 01=insufficient funds, 02= account closed, etc.)

Which reminds me of a tale I heard in a class I took from Tymnet a
while back.  The instructor was talking about a network of ATMs in the
U.K., connected to the central facility via a packet network,
presumably Tymnet. They would establish a virtual circuit each for
each session. The network protocol allowed for a certain amount of
user data in the packet which requested the VC, and more in the
packets accepting or denying it. Apparently the bank recognized an
opportunity: all the necessary data per transaction would fit into the
small user data field of the request packet, and the central facility
could return the results the same way, denying each VC request. No
circuits set up, no network charges applied, and everyone was happy
for something like nine months until the network folks finally caught
on and managed to get severe penalties applied somehow.


Rich Ahrens, Data General Corporation                     rma@irvine.dg.com
2603 Main St, Ste 400, Irvine,CA 92714-6232      rich_ahrens@dgc.ceo.dg.com
Voice: 714-724-3934                                                        
FAX:   714-724-3989                                                        

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

From: rjones@halcyon.com (Ry Jones)
Subject: Re: What's Wrong With My Caller-ID-With-Name?
Date: 28 Jul 1994 00:31:59 GMT
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc.


Jim Derdzinski (73114.3146@compuserve.com) wrote:

> my name didn't show up on their displays.  When I would call them, all
> they would get is my number and "----------------" for a name.  I
> noticed that this has been happening on a lot of calls I receive as
> well.  Note that this name and number service is available in the
> areas these calls originate from.  The number always shows up
> flawlessly, but no name.

I noticed this when I first got mine installed, but it went away after
the first week or two (it has always worked correctly since then).
When my pals move around (and get a new phone), they come down the
line as "PRIVATE NAME / 206 xxx xxxx" or "--- -E- ---/206 xxx xxxx"
for a little bit, then the programming is completed and everything
works. I am in USWEST territory, served by a 1AESS.

> I might add that this seems to be happening on calls originating from
> recently installed or relocated numbers.

Righto.

> P.S.  What is that "0R" that follows the name that I have seen periodically?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sounds to me like someone in the business
> office did not do their paperwork correctly when you had your service
> turned on. Copies of the order are *supposed* to go to various departments
> for inclusion in their systems. The '0R' appears to be a programming error.
> Someone incorrectly closed their parenthesis or quote mark in some print
> statement. The '0R' is supposed to be an op code to accomplish something
> else.  PAT]

Pat, 

I see this topic flare up on alt.2600, alt.dcom.telecom, and
comp.dcom.telecom.tech from time to time. If this is a programming
error (which I'm incline to think it must be), then it's endemic to
CLID programmers. We should find out where this programming error is
introduced. Perhaps it's a certain manufacturer's equipment ... ?
Surely we have enough people with current ONA disks for their area
that we can find out what equipment generates this spurious character.
Then again, why should WE debug the phone system? :)


rjones@halcyon.com


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The '0R' is either an op code or an
operand (the argument for an op code) of some sort. It probably says
what to do at the conclusion of the print statement which includes the
name and phone number. I don't think it is customer premises equipment
causing the problem.    PAT] 

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

From: sdenny@spd.dsccc.com (Stephen Denny)
Subject: Re: What's Wrong With My Caller-ID-With-Name?
Date: 28 Jul 1994 03:33:09 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corporation, Plano, Texas USA


Well, I have a theory.  While the phone number is normally
automatically carried with the call, the name involves a database
lookup.  Any sort of disruption to or in this database would not allow
the name to get through, but the number would always be available.
Perhaps they take down the name server for updates or maintenance or
have failures with backups also failing, or just overloads of the
system?

I have no idea how long it would take to get the name "installed" into
the database, but this being a "relatively" new service, it wouldn't
surprise me if all the kinks weren't yet worked out of the system.


Regards,

Stephen Denny     sdenny@spd.dsccc.com   
DSC Communications Corp.     Plano, TX 

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

From: Arnette.P.Schultz@att.com
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 15:31:20 +0500
Subject: Re: What's Wrong With My Caller-ID-With-Name?
Organization: AT&T


In article <telecom14.336.1@eecs.nwu.edu>, Jim Derdzinski <73114.3146@compuserve.com> writes:
Subject: What's Wrong With My Caller-ID-With-Name?


> I might add that this seems to be happening on calls originating from
> recently installed or relocated numbers.

Bingo!  Although as you later point out "recently installed or
relocated" seems to extend up to six to nine months.

> Comments?  Ideas?  How does the name system work anyway?  Any
> Ameritech people out there?  I'm about ready to cancel this service
> since it only seems to work right half the time.

The calling name system as deployed in the USA utilizes database
queries to obtain the caller's name based on the calling party number.
The name database is administered by the local exchange carrier
providing the calling name service. Some smaller telco's may share a
name database, or lease one from another provider. The name database
is most likely populated from business (billing records).  New lines
or recently moved lines will take some time to show up, as this is a
separate DB from the actual telephone office "data" and is also
(likely) separate from the real billing DB.

There is also a possibility that access to the name database is
unavailable or that the DB will take "too long" to respond with the
information. So the call is completed with out the callers name.  Such
occurrences should be very rare.

I have also noticed that "second" or "teen lines" that are apparently
billed to another number (e.g. I get two phone lines, but a single
bill at my house under one name) do not show up with a name here in
Ameritech land.  We figured this one out with a teenager in the home.
All her friends have "their own phone line" (billed to mom and dad of
course!), and this has been the case even when those phone lines have
been active for two or three years.

As to the statement that the calling name service only appears to work
"part of the time", I have not experienced the same thing in the
Naperville CO.  Except for one friend who moved (new line) in April,
and the teen lines I mentioned, I get name on all "in area" calls.
Makes it very handy to avoid the {Chicago Tribune} and {Daily Herald}.
My life is greatly improved now that I don't have to talk to those
"people" at dinner time!!  (John H., maybe you should consider
relocating to a more progressive state like Illinois. :) :) :).


Arnette Schultz     AT&T Network Systems  arnette.schultz@att.com

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jul 94 01:11:22 CDT
From: clifto@indep1.chi.il.us (Clifton T. Sharp)
Subject: Re: What's Wrong With My Caller-ID-With-Name?


In article <telecom14.336.1@eecs.nwu.edu>, Jim Derdzinski <73114.3146@
compuserve.com> wrote:

> So, anybody know what the deal is here?  Why did it take six months
> after I ordered telephone service here for my name to show?

Seems like they're a few months behind on entry into whatever database
they're using for name lookup.  It seems to be the norm that names
show up some months after service is initiated; my bro-in-law took
about three months.

I managed to get mine in there right away (not exactly deliberately);
just for kicks, I decided to ask the police if I could test E911 here,
and they were slow enough to oblige.  I called, and they told me in
stern, important tones that no information whatsoever showed on their
console, and that I'd better call Ameritech and get _that_ fixed for
my own safety!  I'm guessing when I relate the two things, but my name
did show up on displays almost immediately after I got the service
installed.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #338
******************************
