HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: graeme@fulcrum.co.uk (Graeme Hodgson)
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Date: 21 Jan 93 10:33:18 GMT
Distribution: uk
Organization: Fulcrum Communications

In article <1993Jan21.094646.21169@jet.uk> tp@jet.uk (Tarang K Patel) writes:
> Have you ever wondered with all the hype about system X and/ or Y what has 
> really changed for the private Telephone user since say the 70's ---
>
>     "Not an iota ....  "
>
> Stuff the B in T and let NTT, AT&T ad Pacific bell etc... come in and show
> B.T and Mercury how its done. :-)

Why do people always assume that because the telco can provide some
really interesting feature that 0.6% of the population find really
useful it is inherently a better operator?

I suggest all those that believe the American networks to be better
than the UK read an article posted last week in comp.dcom.telecom on
how a University of California survey found the American operators to
be lagging behind, in particular, Japan, Singapore and the UK.

As for NTT, I expect they're pretty good.

Graeme (defender of the operators of possibly the) Hodgson.
       (world's best telecommunications networks )

--
Hodj                                                              ~ ~
Email to graeme@fulcrum.co.uk     | "Well I still prefer woble    O O
 - whenever the mood takes you.   | and eenk" - Dave Budd          *
  The opinions expressed above are all my own work, honest.       \_/
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
From: Tim Steele <tjfs@tadtec.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Help Required!  Please read on...
Organization: Tadpole Technology plc
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:38:07 GMT
Tpath: mac-tjfs.tadtec.co.uk!tjfs
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A7846EF73801A1C3@mac-tjfs.tadtec.co.uk>
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d17
X-Xxdate: Thu, 21 Jan 93 15:17:11 GMT

Thank you everyone who has tried to get through to 0223-250034.

I appreciate your help as it's enabling me to build a dossier of failed
calls with which to beat Mercury over the head!

Two requests: firstly, if you DO get through, please don't mail me, but try
again later.  I only need to know if you DON'T get through.  Secondly, please
try particularly around 3-4pm as this is Mercury's busiest time.

And finally a reminder: you don't need to wait for the number to answer (after
4-5 rings); if you get ringing tone you're through and you can hang up.  That
way the calls won't cost you anything.

Regards



Tim
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
From: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk (Richard Cox)
Subject: Caller ID                               
Cc: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk
Reply-To: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:21:00 +0000

jwp@aber.ac.uk (J W Perkins) asks:

>>  I fail to see the advantage of having caller-ID on the 'phone for
>>  bona-fide callers, whose number you are likley to have anyway.
>>  Can someone enlighten me?

It will of course depend on the social interaction once the facility becomes
available.  But there should be an option to block any incoming calls, where
the caller has disabled the Caller ID; use of this option may become normal,
thus making the enabling of Caller ID virtually mandatory.  But it's so much
better this should happen by public acceptance, than by any "directive".

Richard D G Cox

Mandarin Technology, Cardiff Business Park, Llanishen, CARDIFF, Wales CF4 5WF
Voice: +44 222 747111      Fax: +44 222 711111      VoiceMail: +44 399 870101
E-mail: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk     Not diallable on 511 in mainland USA
From: mjh@dmu.ac.uk (Mike Howarth)
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
Subject: Re: 144 (Chargecard) - can you speed it up?
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:08:10 GMT
Organization: dmu.ac.uk
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Lionel Tun (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk) wrote:
: I have been using the Chargecard on 144 for some time now.
: you to dial your number is really slow.
: Is there a way
: of interrupting it and dialling your cc number and your
: destination number straight away?
I have a chargecard and have found that as soon as you hear the
confirmation tone from the service you can go ahead and dial everything
without pauses.  On my home phone I have my cc number in a memory, and
other numbers and all I do on getting the tone is
hit cc memory
type pin
hit caller's memory

Hope this answers

Mike.

Mike J. Howarth - SSG Manager
De Montfort University Milton Keynes ENGLAND
+44 908 695511 (Switch) +44 908 834945 (Direct/Voicemail) +44 908 834948 (Fax)
eMail as mjh@dmu.ac.uk (Internet et al) or mjh@uk.ac.dmu (JANET)

-- 
Mike J. Howarth - SSG Manager
De Montfort University Milton Keynes ENGLAND
+44 908 695511 (Switch) +44 908 834945 (Direct/Voicemail) +44 908 834948 (Fax)
eMail as mjh@dmu.ac.uk (Internet et al) or mjh@uk.ac.dmu (JANET)
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
From: keith@unipalm.co.uk (Keith Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Organization: Unipalm Ltd., 216 Cambridge Science Park, Cambridge CB4 4WA, UK
Distribution: uk
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:20:22 GMT

Some thoughts on the Caller ID debate - I am curious as to whether BT will
be using ISDN technology to introduce this, or if it will be based on the
"modem data between rings" technology in use in the states.

However, it occurs to me that you don't need any of this technology at all -
all that is required is for a speech synthesiser to pre-announce the number
to you when you pick the phone up, well within the hardware capabilities of System X
etc. While this might be tedious for every call, you could always have a list
of numbers from which you will always accept calls.

Likewise, you don't need to be told what a number is via Caller ID to be able to
tell the exchange not to pass on any further calls from that number.

Keith Mitchell

Public IP Exchange             keith@pipex.net
216 The Science Park           keith@unipalm.co.uk
Cambridge, UK                  keith@uk.co.pipex	(non-IP JANET sites)
Phone: +44 223-424616
Fax:   +44 223-426868
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
From: graeme@fulcrum.co.uk (Graeme Hodgson)
Subject: Re: Mercury portable phone network???
Organization: Fulcrum Communications
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 10:22:27 GMT

In article <727741836snz@gilly.demon.co.uk> Alastair@gilly.demon.co.uk writes:
>I think BT are precluded from buying into PCN (they would have done so by 
>now if they were allowed), anyway through ownership of cellnet they are
>allowed to set up a GSM system as an extension of their original mobile 
>licence (cellnet that is).

Didn't BT set-up Phonepoint or Telepoint or something with Ferranti or
somesuch?  I can't remember the exact details but I'm sure they were
involved in one of the PCN licences.

I believe that all the prospective PCN operators did some
cost-modelling and decided that the market just wasn't there.  They
all pulled out, or at least tried to :^), bar Microtel who were bought
by Hutchison Telecom.  The Hutchison Rabbit system is the only one
left, I think.  I seem to remember Shell and Barclays being involved
at one point too.

Maybe someone could post a summary of the PCN, CT2, GSM saga to date?

Nostalgically,

Graeme.

--
Hodj                                                              ~ ~
Email to graeme@fulcrum.co.uk     | "Well I still prefer woble    O O
 - whenever the mood takes you.   | and eenk" - Dave Budd          *
  The opinions expressed above are all my own work, honest.       \_/
From: pky@fmg.bt.co.uk (Pete Young)
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
Subject: Teleworking information from BT
Date: 27 Jan 93 09:08:39 GMT
Organization: British Telecom
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

OK, as promised here is the information needed for getting hold of
teleworking information.

Call 0800 800 854.

The basic information pack includes pamphlets on what teleworking is,
what kind of business is most likely to benefit [the ones on the
telephone :-) ], economics of teleworking and products available from
BT. 

It should also be possible to request copies of BTs research
reports into teleworking and arrange an appointment  with a BT sales
manager by ringing that number.

Hope this helps.



-- 
  ____________________________________________________________________
  Pete Young        	  pky@fmg.bt.co.uk        Phone +44 473 227151
    "Most people prefer entertaining nonsense to unexciting reality"
From: wdrdjh@thor.cf.ac.uk (Dr D J Harvey 92)
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
Subject: Re: At Last An End To Double Glazing Salesman (was: Caller ID)
Date: 26 Jan 93 12:00:45 GMT
Distribution: uk
Organization: University of Wales College at Cardiff
X-Mailer: Cardiff Computing Maths PP Mail Open News Gateway

In article <8246@skye.ed.ac.uk> ken@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Ken Johnson) writes:
|
|In article <1993Jan22.092325.22409@gssec.bt.co.uk>
|fbowles@gssec.bt.co.uk (Frank K Bowles) writes:
|
|
|#  The features offered by Caller Display (the name CLID services will be
|#  marketed under) are expected to be:
|#  
|#  [...]
|#  
|#  - selective call forwarding (diverts incoming calls from specified
|#    numbers)
|
|Heh. 
|
|From the day they introduce this feature, all double glazing companies
|ringing me at home can expect to be routed to Abdul's Goat Barbecue in
|Thailand. 

NOT a good idea - you'd be paying for their call to Thailand!

Dave Harvey  
(harveydj@cardiff.ac.uk)  tel: +44 222 552588
Dept Radiology, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff CF4 4XW, UK
-- 
Dave Harvey  
(harveydj@cardiff.ac.uk)  tel: +44 222 552588
Dept Radiology, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff CF4 4XW, UK
From: ucjtpzh@ucl.ac.uk (Mr Tom Hartley)
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
Subject: BT-WEB getting in touch with my mum!
Date: 26 Jan 93 13:25:48 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

My mum works for BT at Martlesham Heath. She has an account on a system called
WEB I think. She is not au fait with E-mail, so she doesn't know her E-mail
Address. I would like to correspond with her. Anyone know where I can find the
relevant information - eg the address of someone in charge of mail at BT Martlesham Heath?

Cheers

Please respond via E-mail.
From: mjh@dmu.ac.uk (Mike Howarth)
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
Subject: Re: Rabbit phones.
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:41:37 GMT
Distribution: uk
Organization: De Montfort University Milton Keynes, UK.

In article <1993Jan20.172246.7532@psg.npl.co.uk> ACKS@newton.npl.co.uk (A C K SMITH CSU) writes:
>In <1993Jan18.180429.27233@syma.sussex.ac.uk> grahamt@syma.sussex.ac.uk writes:
>
>> 
>> What I'm not sure about with Rabbit is whether they've taken into
[deleted ]
>
>I was given a Rabbit phone + base station for Christmas. According to
[deleted]
>
>Adrian Smith
At my institution we use a Motorola Silverlink system for several people
behind a GPT PABX.  I was/am responsible for its use.  We have found it to
be a very good system, especially considering the campus we have.  Our
buildings are all metal framed, and we have _very_ few dropout areas.  The
CT2 technology is definitely better than the standard analogue radio
cordless systems, BUT, you pay the price.

I would think that the CT2 technology has got to be the way to go forward
- and what we as consumers (both private and corporate) have to do is get
the prices down.

One of the added advantages of buying a CT2 system (from our standpoint)
is the fact that in certain circumstances we can license it to the
Rabbit(tm) network.  I appreciate this doesn't suit everybody.

I would be interested to hear from other users of CT2 technology of how
they are coping with Architectural problems, as I am now putting together
a budgetary paper for my bosses with regard to replacing a closed group
radio network.

regards
Mike.
Mike J. Howarth - SSG Manager
De Montfort University Milton Keynes ENGLAND
+44 908 695511 (Switch) +44 908 834945 (Direct/Voicemail) +44 908 834948 (Fax)
eMail as mjh@dmu.ac.uk (Internet et al) or mjh@uk.ac.dmu (JANET)

-- 
Mike J. Howarth - SSG Manager
De Montfort University Milton Keynes ENGLAND
+44 908 695511 (Switch) +44 908 834945 (Direct/Voicemail) +44 908 834948 (Fax)
eMail as mjh@dmu.ac.uk (Internet et al) or mjh@uk.ac.dmu (JANET)
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
From: dhd@exnet.co.uk (Damon)
Subject: Re: Mercury portable phone network???
Organization: ExNet Systems Ltd Public Access News, London, UK
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:56:05 GMT

In article <8236@skye.ed.ac.uk> ken@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Ken Johnson) writes:
>
>In article <727560615snz@gilly.demon.co.uk> Alastair@gilly.demon.co.uk
>writes:
>
>#  They will be offering a mobile phone service [...] initially with a more
>#  limited coverage inside the M25 for launch
>
>A fat lot of good that will be to the rest of us. 
>
>#  ...and rolling out from there to the Greater London area over the next
>#  nine months. 
>
>The WHOLE of the GREATER LONDON AREA? Well, that's all right then. 

Didn't you know there's no intelligent life ouside the M25, Ken?  But
then I guess you won't be able to understand me anyway since you're
outside the M25.  B^>

Damon

PS. Ken, I think it might be a case of not being able to do the whole
    lot at once---these things cost money you know.  Not that us
    `inside-the-M25-and-not-entirely-ashamed-of-it'ers could expect
    academics to understand money and arguments about population
    density (including IQ?!)...  Consider the relative population
    inside the M25 and in the whole of Scotland.  Consider the land
    area and terrain.  Now, Ken, *you* chose which one you'd invest
    you paycheque on start-up comms technology for...  B^>  B^>
-- 
Damon Hart-Davis        d@hd.org   London UK   Tel/Fax: +44 81 755 0077  [1.37]

Two separate jobs, two employers: (1) Editor of Parallelogram, (2) Consultant
and seller of uucp news/mail feeds (UK#5 pcm, FIRST MONTH FREE) and cheap Suns.
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
From: dec@alex.com (Doug Clinton)
Return-Path: <news@alex.com>
Subject: Re: Call charges
Organization: Alex Technologies Ltd
Apparently-To: mail2news@demon.co.uk
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:43:41 +0000

In article <931625141639@ibm3090.bham.ac.uk>, TREHARAJ@ibm3090.bham.ac.uk writes:
|> ==============================================================================
|> 
|> Is it true that when I make a call BT only charge for whole units and so I am
|> being overcharged for the vast majority of my calls?
|> 

It is true that BT only charge for whole units regardless of how much
of the unit you have used. It is not correct to say that BT are
'overcharging' for your calls since this is how their charging
structure is defined.

Regards,
Doug

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Clinton				Alex Technologies Ltd
dec@alex.com				CP House,
					97-107 Uxbridge Road,
+44 (0)81 566 2307			Ealing, London, W5 5TL
	    === PGP 2.1 public key available ===
---------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
Subject: A Backward step ?
From: whiskerp@logica.co.uk (Peter Whisker)
Date: 22 Jan 93 09:36:20 GMT
Organization: Logica Defence and Civil Government Ltd.
Keywords: exchange

Is digital technology a step forward?

Back in the late '70s while I was still a student, on a field trip to the 
West of Ireland, we stepped back into the sweet innocence of the pre-
technological age.

The local hotel had a telephone number of "Lisdoonvarna 3".

One seized a handle on the side of the phone and wound it furiously. Then, 
one lifted the receiver and listened - not to be greeted by a dial-tone but 
by "Hello - exchange".

One then requested the desired number and were then asked to "please put in 
twenty pence". This was accompanied by much clanging within the telephone - 
the operator listened and counted the pings and clangs.

You could of course request the exchange to tell you how much more was 
needed.

Following connection, you were asked to "please press button A".

Having put in sufficient for three minutes call to Dublin, after about a 
quarter of an hour you would be politely interrupted and advised that "your 
time is nearly up, would you like to put in more money or finish up".

I finished up within the next five minutes - having spoken for about twenty 
minutes for the price of three !

Of course, the exchange had "voice recognition" !. If known you might be 
greeted with "Good morning Father O'Mahoney" - far better than "BEEP BEEP 
BEEP You have dialled incorrectly - please replace the handset and try 
again". Also, the "exchange" provided regular news updates free of charge 
"Did you hear about Mary Byrne ...." Who needed CLID - you were well known !

On completion of the call, one replaced the receiver, seized the handle and 
wound furiously again.

Charges for calls depended on politeness, the mood of the operator and how 
interesting your conversation was, but could work out very cheap !

Sadly, with the handover from the "P and T" to Telecom Eireann and the 
spending of hundreds of millions, such places have leapt from winding 
handles to digital exchanges with network services - with not a strowger or 
TXE4 in sight !

But what digital exchange can provide advice, recognise voice, make 
discretionary charges depending on how interesting the chat !

And if you are a few pence short for the call, can you negotiate with a 
payphone ?

As I say, a retrograde step.

Peter Whisker
_______________________________________
Peter Whisker   (whiskerp@logica.co.uk)
Logica DCG Ltd.
Cobham, Surrey KT11 1HY, UK
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
From: robin@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Rob Rainton)
Subject: Re: Itemised Bills
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:57:25 GMT

In article <931325141322@ibm3090.bham.ac.uk> TREHARAJ@ibm3090.bham.ac.uk writes:
>==============================================================================
>Could anybody explain what modifications BT would need to carry out in
>order to supply the residential customer with a fully itemised bill?
>Why is it that Mercury can do so?
>
>Andy T.

A couple of my friends have just recieved full itemised bills, like the ones
Mercury sends out. The only calls that are not listed are less than 10 units
long which BT seams to think you don't want to know about.

Is it these calls you're talking about??

As far as I can see they are stored somewhere but BT doesn't list them to save
rainforest and the postie a strained back - but in they could (?? just
guessing ??)

Rob.
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
From: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk (Richard Cox)
Subject: Call charges                            
Cc: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk
Reply-To: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:21:00 +0000

TREHARAJ@ibm3090.bham.ac.uk (Andy T.) asks:

>>  Is it true that when I make a call BT only charge for whole units and so
>>  I am being overcharged for the vast majority of my calls?

It's certainly true that BT charge in metered unit increments.  Of course, BT
would claim that this is the basis of their tariff, and therefore they cannot
be overcharging.  On the other hand Mercury don't do this ... and they charge
less as a result.  I'll leave you to draw your own confusions.

Richard D G Cox

Mandarin Technology, Cardiff Business Park, Llanishen, CARDIFF, Wales CF4 5WF
Voice: +44 222 747111      Fax: +44 222 711111      VoiceMail: +44 399 870101
E-mail: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk     Not diallable on 511 in mainland USA
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
From: dec@alex.com (Doug Clinton)
Return-Path: <news>
Subject: Re: Itemised Bills
Organization: Alex Technologies Ltd
Apparently-To: mail2news@demon.co.uk
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 10:20:00 +0000

In article <C1FF16.G18@exnet.co.uk>, dhd@exnet.co.uk (Damon) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan25.144543.5802@alex.com> dec@alex.com (Doug Clinton) writes:
|> >(probably one or two orders of magnitude) which means they do not have
|> >to store as much data.
|> 
|> BT is reputed to keep details of all calls on fast storage for six
|> months for dubious purposes; I'm sure Mr Parnoid^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Toal
|> (B^>) will provide some illumination here...

In that case the reason I had always assumed for not being able to get
a fully itemised bill is wrong and I can only assume that BT simply do
not want to offer their customers a service (surprise, surprise).

Regards,
Doug

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Clinton				Alex Technologies Ltd
dec@alex.com				CP House,
					97-107 Uxbridge Road,
+44 (0)81 566 2307			Ealing, London, W5 5TL
	    === PGP 2.1 public key available ===
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: phudl@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr S J Liddicott)
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Date: 21 Jan 1993 12:25:13 -0000
Organization: Computing Services, University of Warwick, UK
Distribution: uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk

In article <1993Jan21.094646.21169@jet.uk> tp@jet.uk (Tarang K Patel) writes:
>
> Stuff the B in T and let NTT, AT&T ad Pacific bell etc... come in and show
> B.T and Mercury how its done. :-)

Nonsense - BT Network services are better than AT&T & USWEST's version of
the same thing.

In Boise, Idaho however, USWEST's caller ID tells you the NAME of the 
subscriber, as well as the number of the originating line.
- Now that saves you remembering all your friends numbers!


-- 
*----------*-------------------------------------------------------------*
| Sam   Jam|"Never underestimate the importance of a cheap laugh"-       |
| Liddicott| phudl@csv.warwick.ac.uk  | I WAS IN IDAHO | Plucky Duck TTA |
*--------------IF NOT 1 AND NOT 2 AND NOT 3 THEN 4-----------------------*
From: ken@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Ken Johnson)
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
Subject: Re: caller ID
Date: 22 Jan 93 15:18:21 GMT
Followup-To: uk.telecom
Distribution: uk
Organization: William's Wonderful Wonky Widget Warehouse


In article <1993Jan20.085721.9253@edscom.demon.co.uk>
ian@edscom.demon.co.uk (Ian Green) writes:

#  I'm sure that, for a small fee, someone around here will design you a
#  phone that automatically recognises one of them calling and doesn't
#  bother to ring :-)

While not ringing, it must answer the phone with a recorded announcement
saying `The number you are calling is <indecipherable mumble>.  Please
hold the line', pours charge-pulses down the line faster than a
tommy-gun sprays bullets, and plays them `The Birdie Song'. 

Ian could make a million out of this.  Can I have 10% please?

fortunately, Ken Johnson






-- 
Son, all the pretty, intelligent, healthy     #    Ken Johnson, AIAI,
young women are taken. It's a basic rule of   #    80 South Bridge, Edinburgh
the universe, and if you don't like it, go    #    Tel 031-650 2756 
somewhere else.        -- my dad  1906-1992   #    Fax 031-650 6513                                                                                             I have discovered of this basic law of the universe a most remarkable           proof, which a 
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
From: dhd@exnet.co.uk (Damon)
Subject: Re: Itemised Bills
Organization: ExNet Systems Ltd Public Access News, London, UK
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:49:11 GMT

In article <sK1ZrABDBh107h@jcs.ibmpcug.co.uk> jcs@jcs.ibmpcug.co.uk (Default Account) writes:
>In <931325141322@ibm3090.bham.ac.uk> TREHARAJ@ibm3090.bham.ac.uk writes:
>>==============================================================================
>>Could anybody explain what modifications BT would need to carry out in
>>order to supply the residential customer with a fully itemised bill?
>>Why is it that Mercury can do so?
>
>I have reporte BT to the Advertising Standards for misleading advertising about
>itemised billing. I have also written to them complaining that 30% of my bill is NOT
>itemised. The response was that when itemised billing was introduced they conducted
>a market survey and there as NO DEMAND for fully itemised billing.
>
>I AM DEMANDING IT!
>
>It is a direct consequence of their billing policy that I now use Mercury for all of 
>my non local calls.

It's certainly a major reason for my using Mercury to the tune of about #100
per month; the lower call charges are important but not overriding.

Damon
-- 
Damon Hart-Davis        d@hd.org   London UK   Tel/Fax: +44 81 755 0077  [1.37]

Two separate jobs, two employers: (1) Editor of Parallelogram, (2) Consultant
and seller of uucp news/mail feeds (UK#5 pcm, FIRST MONTH FREE) and cheap Suns.
Newsgroups: uk.telecom