HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Itemised Bills
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:16:01 GMT

In article <C1FF16.G18@exnet.co.uk> dhd@exnet.co.uk (Damon) writes:
: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...

Illuninati'R'Us :)

G
From: aw@bnr.co.uk (Alan Wilkinson)
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
Subject: Re: Mercury portable phone network???
Date: 21 Jan 93 11:57:53 GMT
Distribution: uk
Organization: BNR Europe Ltd
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.100.101.77

In article <727560615snz@gilly.demon.co.uk>, Alastair@gilly.demon.co.uk (Alastair James Gilchrist) writes:

> In article <1993Jan20.123940.26865@unipalm.co.uk> keith@unipalm.co.uk writes:

> >The other PCN licence holder is Hutchinson/Rabbit. I've no idea
> >about their plans, but it seems to me there is not enough room in
> >the market for all of PCN, CT2 and GSM to survive.

> The service will be a truly two way telephone service and not like Rabbit,
> and a voicemail feature will be included as standard. PCN is based on the
> GSM spec. but uses twice the radio frequency. What does this mean? because 
> radio signals at this frequency do not travel as far, more base stations
> are required to offer contiguous coverage, however many more customers
> can be accommodated in a given area.

Am I right in thinking that one of the advantages of GSM is that the subscriber
would be able to roam freely from one European GSM network to another? If so, 
given that "PCN is based on the GSM spec." will this benefit still be available
to PCN users? Or will PCN be in direct competition with GSM providers?

> This is an important point as MPC intend the service to be a mass consumer
> product.

Is there any indication yet how much the consumer will pay for the service?

Alan Wilkinson
From: davidw@fulcrum.co.uk (David Wilkinson)
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
Subject: Re: Itemised Bills
Date: 26 Jan 93 08:41:00 GMT
Organization: Fulcrum Communications

In article <1993Jan25.165736.21231@aston.ac.uk> evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
>Doug Clinton (dec@alex.com) wrote:
>: 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?
>: 
>: BT would almost certainly have to install a very large amount of extra
>: mass storage in order to log every all to provide fully itemised
>: bills. Mercury can manage it because they have far fewer customers
>: (probably one or two orders of magnitude) which means they do not have
>: to store as much data.
>
>How much data?
>After all disk drives are not exactly expensive items.
>Also calculating the unit value for calls (and fudging the meter figure)
>must take up a fair amount of cpu time. (Is this done by the exchange processer,
>probably, due to charge advice, which mercury does not have)

I suspect that one problem is the size of the disk that comes with
exchanges such as System X. All the billing data is dumped to that,
and then downloaded to a remote site periodically (every hour, I
think) over X.25. BT insist, however, that they musn't lose any
billing data, even if their comms links go down for a long period (>
1day?) - this effectively limits the amount of data that can
physically be stored, and hence the 10 unit restriction. 

Don't ask me how Mercury manage to do it, I don't know.

I suspect one solution would be to persuade GPT to fit bigger disks to
their exchanges, but there might be technical arguments against that.

Dave W.



--
David Wilkinson                                    davidw@fulcrum.co.uk
Fulcrum Communications Ltd, Fordrough Lane, Birmingham, B9 5LD, ENGLAND
From: dhd@exnet.co.uk (Damon)
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
Subject: Re: At Last An End To Double Glazing Salesman (was: Caller ID)
Date: 25 Jan 93 20:14:38 GMT
Distribution: uk
Organization: ExNet Systems Ltd Public Access News, London, UK

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. 

Nice idea except that you will pay the onward portion of the call, ie the
bit to Thailand.  Bv<

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
From: ian@edscom.demon.co.uk (Ian Green)
Subject: Re: Itemised Bills
Organization: EDS-Scicon, Milton Keynes, UK
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:49:08 GMT

Doug Clinton (dec@alex.com) wrote:
: 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).

Very probably!  All of the discussion so far has centred around the technical
issues of BT providing itemised bills.  I suspect that it is the business
issues that are overriding tho'.  The question their management will ask is
"What's in it for us?"  In other words, "if we spend all of this money
providing itemised billing, how much extra revenue will it generate for us -
or maybe how much business will it stop from going elsewhere?"

Given that the only serious competition is currently coming from Mercury,
and that the private user cannot, in general, connect to them directly, the
answer is that there is little reason for them to implement it.  All of the 
shouting and screaming from private customers won't bother them 'cos much of
their revenue comes from businesses (who probably have PBXs with call loggers)
and, coicidentally, that is where the Mercury competition is strongest.

Now, if someone starts a direct-connect-to-customer service that provides
true call logging, cheap long distance calls etc. *that* may cause a shake-up.

Anyone out there got a few million pounds of capital they want to invest? :-)

Ian.
-- 
/--------------------------------------v----------------------------------\
| Opinions expressed are my own and    | Phone: +44 908 585858 or 284508  |
| not necessarily those of my employer | Fax:   +44 908 584620            |
\--------------------------------------^----------------------------------/
From: snail@lsl.co.uk
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
Subject: Re: caller ID
Date: 22 Jan 93 16:07:05 GMT
Organization: Laser-Scan Ltd., Cambridge

In article <1993Jan20.094907.27352@concurrent.co.uk>, nnw@concurrent.co.uk (Neil Watson) writes:
> I
> think the strongest reason for wanting to suppress my CID is the
> ex-directory one. If I do not want to "publish" my number, then why
> should I NOT have a way of stopping it being broadcast on each call I
> make.

I *am* ex-directory, and if Caller ID is available, then I *MUST* have a way of
not revealing the number. I'm ex-driectory for my reasons, and I see no reason
why I should reveal the number to people other than I wish. Hell even the
phone has the wrong number written on it! (this is more laziness than anything,
but everytime I think or writing the correct number on it, I think why should
i?). You don't get my number unless I tell you. Simple.
-- 
snail@lsl.co.uk      

"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless
 means to side with the powerful, not to be Neutral."
                                                     Quote by Freire.
                                                     Poster by OXFAM.
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: Itemised Bills
Organization: Aston University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL241235]
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:57:36 GMT

Doug Clinton (dec@alex.com) wrote:
: 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?
: 
: BT would almost certainly have to install a very large amount of extra
: mass storage in order to log every all to provide fully itemised
: bills. Mercury can manage it because they have far fewer customers
: (probably one or two orders of magnitude) which means they do not have
: to store as much data.

How much data?
After all disk drives are not exactly expensive items.
Also calculating the unit value for calls (and fudging the meter figure)
must take up a fair amount of cpu time. (Is this done by the exchange processer,
probably, due to charge advice, which mercury does not have)

Also mercury started from scratch with one type of hardware.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 429 9199  (Home)                    |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
From: tlw@mph.sm.ucl.ac.uk (Tim Whitlock)
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
Subject: FAX/MODEM switches
Date: 21 Jan 93 07:43:29 GMT
Reply-To: tlw@mph.sm.ucl.ac.uk
Organization: Medical Physics Dept., University College, London, UK

Does anyone know of such a beast. I have a telephone line which currently just has a
fax machine connected. I would like to also use it as a dial in modem but have had
no success with any switches I have so far tried. I have managed fax and normal phone
and modem and normal phone but have not managed to switch fax and modem. Any 
suggestions comments etc appreciated.

Tim 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Whitlock                          JANET: tlw@uk.ac.ucl.sm.mph
Dept of Medical Physics              BITNET: tlw@uk.ac.ucl.sm.mph@ukacrl.bitnet
University College London          INTERNET: tlw@mph.sm.ucl.ac.uk
Capper St. London WC1E 6JA UK        TEL: +44 71-380-9700  FAX: +44 71-380-9577
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Itemised Bills
Cc: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:25:50 +0000

:|> 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?

:BT would almost certainly have to install a very large amount of extra
:mass storage in order to log every all to provide fully itemised
:bills. Mercury can manage it because they have far fewer customers

It's almost certain BT already log in detail, and just generated the
'metred usage' at billing time to a) save paper, or b) chance their
arm - depending on your belief in their honesty.

G
From: jrg@doc.ic.ac.uk (James Grinter)
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
Subject: Re: Mercury portable phone network???
Date: 21 Jan 93 12:35:38 GMT
Organization: Dept. Of Computing, Imperial College of STM, UoL, UK
Distribution: uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: oak48.doc.ic.ac.uk
In-reply-to: keith@unipalm.co.uk's message of Wed, 20 Jan 1993 12:39:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.123940.26865@unipalm.co.uk> keith@unipalm.co.uk (Keith Mitchell) writes:

   This will be their PCN service, a sort of half-way house between CT2...
   [rest deleted]

Can anyone remember how many franchises there were in total? I seem to
remember that two of the franchisees (?) merged and one may be up for
grabs (BT et al might be trying for it, cos they weren't allowed one
originally).

James.

--
James Grinter, c/o Dept Of Computing, Imperial College, LONDON, SW7 2BZ.
Aeval({227406,131304,719166,950732,993440,1364628,1491756,1868584,1235232,;
2151480,2524368,2802876,2769312,2839886,3104325,1824},;
{|x,y| QQout(chr((x%2048)/y)+chr(int((x/2048)/y))) })
From: ccdarg@dct.ac.uk (Alan Greig)
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
Subject: Re: caller ID
Date: 21 Jan 93 11:12:31 GMT
Organization: Dundee Institute of Technology

In article <C15y2n.C2u@fulcrum.co.uk>, graeme@fulcrum.co.uk (Graeme Hodgson) writes:
> Well, seem to have started a bit of discussion here :^).
> 
> I accept that in certain cases it is sensible to allow confidentiality
> should the caller wish it.  For this reason it is necessary to allow
> the caller to be able to block on any call.
> 
> However, I don't accept the paranoia-related reasons of "Oh my God,
> now they'll call me all the time and try and sell me double glazing".
> (Despite the second paragraph of my original posting!)
> 
> In summary, I'm in favour of the facility - just thought I'd clear
> that up.
> 
> Note to G: even without CLID it seems that my phone number can be 
>            readily obtained by people whom I would prefer not to 
>            have it.  Reading paranoid newsgroup archives will not 
>            change this.

Just because you *aren't* paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to
get you :-)

-- 
Alan Greig                            Janet: Alan@UK.AC.DUNDEE-TECH
Dundee Institute of Technology	   Internet: Alan@DCT.AC.UK
Tel: (0382) 308810                 Int: +44 382 308810
              -- There is only one true conspiracy --
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
From: rpt@edscom.demon.co.uk (Richard Tomlinson)
Subject: Re: phone boxes
Organization: EDS-Scicon, Milton Keynes, UK
Distribution: uk
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 09:16:50 GMT

In article <C1B9MF.87B@cck.coventry.ac.uk> lsg001@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Graham Wilson) writes:
>
>** Is the cost of dialling anywhere in the country whether it be peak,
>   standard or cheap rate from a public call box the same as it costs
>   to make the same call from a private residential BT phone ? Do you
>   get the same number of seconds for each unit ?

No. It is much more expensive to call from a phone box. Also, remember that
if you accept a reverse charge call from a phone box, you pay at the phone
box rate even though it appears on your home phone bill.
-- 
Richard Tomlinson, EDS Scicon Ltd, Wavendon Tower, Milton Keynes, UK MK17 8LX
rpt@edscom.demon.co.uk   Tel:  +44 908 284539          Amateur radio: G4TGJ
All opinions expressed are mine, and are not necessarily those of my employer.
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
From: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk (Richard Cox)
Subject: Re: 144 (Chargecard) - can you speed it 
Cc: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk
Reply-To: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:01:00 +0000

mjh@dmu.ac.uk (Mike Howarth) said:

>>  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.

You should wait until the tone finishes.  BT will interpret the digits you
dial slightly differently if you send them while the tone is present.

>  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

I am puzzled as to why you are using a Chargecard from home ?
At over double the cost of directly dialled calls ?

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@alex.com>
Subject: Re: Call charges
Organization: Alex Technologies Ltd
Apparently-To: mail2news@demon.co.uk
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 10:22:53 +0000

In article <934125174103@ibm3090.bham.ac.uk>, TREHARAJ@ibm3090.bham.ac.uk writes:
|> ==============================================================================
|> Doug Clinton writes:
|> 
|> If they _do_ take this into account when calculating their unit
|> costs, they must estimate the amount they make from these part units
|> and adjust the unit costs accordingly. It's a pretty dodgy way of
|> pricing services whatever they are doing, the fact they tell you how
|> their dodgy system works doesn't mean they are not overcharging.
|> 

I never said it was a good charging system and I beleive it is
overpriced but my definition of 'overcharging' is charging more that
you said you would. Of course, BT don't go out of their way to
advertise this charging structure but they do publish it.

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
From: rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns)
Subject: Re: A Backward step ?
Keywords: exchange
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 10:46:34 GMT

In article <whiskerp.16.0@logica.co.uk>, whiskerp@logica.co.uk (Peter Whisker) writes:
|> 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".
|> [...]
|> As I say, a retrograde step.

I was brought up in rural Kent; both my home exchange (Langton) and
its parent (Tunbridge Wells) were manually-operated, though we didn't
have to twirl a handle - we just picked up a 'phone and waited.

The problem is highlighted in the following extract from my
autobiography (to give it a rather more serious title than it deserves
;-):

 We also had a telephone for Dad's work, which was (I think) pretty
 unusual for the time. (Its number, 68, keeps cropping up in my
 parents' number as they have moved about since leaving Langton.  This
 delighted me when I first noticed it, and now they go on about
 it, too.)

 ...

 Langton's telephone exchange was in a room at the back of someone's
 house at the bottom of a road that led down from our house to donkey
 walk.  Exchanges being a 24-hour job, I've no idea how it was manned.
 But the operator performed services for people, like finding someone
 to shovel snow for an old couple (to take but one back-breaking
 example!).

Langton exchange worked day and night (very properly providing an
emergency service to the village).  Tunbridge Wells exchange was
grossly overloaded (like today's NHS), and it was always a matter of
luck if you actually attracted an operator's attention there.  This
meant that any call from Langton to _any_ other exchange took an age,
since Langton only had trunks to Tunbridge Wells.

On the other hand (as both you and I indicate), the service was more
_personal_.

My fascination with telephones, however, derives from the time when I
moved to school in rural Somerset where the exchanges were automatic,
and one could get service simply by picking the 'phone up.

Nostalgia isn't (and never was) what it was...
--
Robin (Keep Radio 3 != Classic FM) Fairbairns       rf@cl.cam.ac.uk
U of Cambridge Computer Lab, Pembroke St, Cambridge  CB2 3QG, UK
From: pky@fmg.bt.co.uk (Pete Young)
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
Subject: Re: Teleworking support
Date: 25 Jan 93 11:12:10 GMT
Organization: British Telecom
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Alastair James Gilchrist (Alastair@gilly.demon.co.uk) wrote:

[Re the subject of information on teleworking]

: Much as I hate to recommend the opposition, BT have done alot of work in this
: area, mainly out of their reserch arm in Martlesham Heath.

What a nice chap. BT has indeed produced an information pack. I don't have
the address to hand, but I will post details of how to apply as soon as I
can find out.


-- 
  ____________________________________________________________________
  Pete Young        	  pky@fmg.bt.co.uk        Phone +44 473 227151
    "Most people prefer entertaining nonsense to unexciting reality"
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
From: alla0008@student.tc.umn.edu (Graham Allan)
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Organization: University of Minnesota
Distribution: uk
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:40:12 GMT

In article <8249@skye.ed.ac.uk> ken@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Ken Johnson) writes:
>
>In article <1993Jan21.091543.25465@edscom.demon.co.uk>
>ian@edscom.demon.co.uk (Ian Green) writes:
>
>#  Secondly - you cannot (on most if not all exchanges now) leave an
>#  unanswered call ringing for very long (3 mins??) to stop the tie-up of
>#  international lines
>
>Brilliant.  It is now completely impossible to get through to British
>Rail travel enquiries.  You hang on for three minutes and dear ole BT
>then aborts the attempt. 

Aren't you glad these international lines aren't being tied up though?

British Rail Enquiries PLC (Cayman Isles)...?

Graham

Newsgroups: uk.telecom
From: simon@cs.city.ac.uk (Simon Brock-Gunn)
Subject: Re: At Last An End To Double Glazing Salesman (was: Caller ID)
Organization: City University, London
Distribution: uk
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 12:47:06 GMT

In article <C1F0rs.5Mt@fulcrum.co.uk> igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten) writes:
>In article <8246@skye.ed.ac.uk> ken@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Ken Johnson) writes:
>> 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. 
>
>Who do you think PAYS for the forwarding?

But not if you forward them to their own company's 0800 number!

==============================================================================
|| Simon A. Brock-Gunn | Computer Science Dept. | You can't have everything ||
|| simon@cs.city.ac.uk | City University, Nort- | - where would you put it? ||
|| Tel +44 71 477 8000 | hampton Square, London |---------------------------||
|| Fax +44 71 477 8587 | EC1V 0HB, England, UK. |   (THIS SPACE FOR RENT)   ||
==============================================================================
From: vassilis@westminster.ac.uk (Vassilis Konstantinou)
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Date: 22 Jan 93 08:34:45 GMT
Distribution: uk
Organization: University of Westminster

In article <1993Jan21.120435.18645@infodev.cam.ac.uk> rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) writes:
>
>It's all down to economics.  If you have a vast telephone population,
>it costs you to upgrade it.  If any of NTT, AT&T, PacBell, whatever,
>were to arrive here, it would be some time before their service was
>sufficient to attract significant subscribers (sorry, customers).  In
>the interim, they have to pay through the nose to acquire all this
>high-falutin' technology.
>

I thought that AT&T already owns a very big part of BT.

Does anybody have any details...


-- 
Vassilis Konstantinou, Head of A.I. Division
School of Computer Science, The University of Westminster
115 New Cavendish Street, London W1M 8JS, UK.