HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 14:13:51 GMT
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Best Sounding Phones
Organization: Columbia University
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 632, Message 11 of 13

Since we've already discussed answering machines, I thought I'd throw
this one out to net.land.

Which phones made today have the best transmission/reception quality?
So many of them are such *junk*, even many of the AT&T models.  It's
hard to beat the sound (or the ergonomics) of a good ol' WECO
500/2500.

Several years ago I used a one-piece phone called a Krone (I think it
was German made) and the sound quality in both directions was amazing.


Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.  gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu 
N2GPZ in ham radio circles    72355,1226 on CI$
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1992 21:10:35 +0100
From: rickie@trickie.uucp (Richard Nash)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re:  How Do I Run This Line?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 626, Message 9 of 15

Dave Niebuhr writes:

[... Text describing problem getting telco to string wires to have the
     same number in three buildings deleted ...] 

> When my wife and I moved into our present home, we had a new number
> assigned due to a change of COs.  Not only did NYTel set it up so that
> both numbers were assigned to *both* homes for a week, they were the
> ones who suggested doing that.  Therefore, if someone called us at our
> old number (516-325) the new one (516-281) would ring also and
> vice-versa.

Perhaps this is an obvious solution, but could someone in telco land
explain how both numbers would call the other one, (vice-versa),
without the other one being automatically called also?  Or is it a
simple hardware solution whereby both lines are bridged together on a
common ring-down circuit (one way)?  


Richard Nash     	Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8
UUCP:                   trickie!rickie@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca
Amatuer Radio Packet:   VE6BON @ VE6MC.AB.CAN.NA 
                        VE6BON.ampr.org [44.135.147.206]
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:29:21 GMT
From: rm55+@pitt.edu (Rudolph T Maceyko)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AT&T EasyReach Problems in Rochester, NY
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 623, Message 9 of 11

I have an AT&T EasyReach number and recently moved.  My old number is
still active for another week.

I called the EasyReach folks and changed all of my AT&T info (address,
new number) with them.  I was told, however, that there was currently
NO WAY to associate an EasyReach number with my new phone YET!  Yeah,
I can use the call forwarding feature, but geez!

In a few weeks, when they are finally able to make the change, they
will coordinate a time with me to make the change over the phone, at
which time they will give me a NEW MASTER PIN, which they say MUST
change.

Oh, and my EasyReach bill will accumulate until they make the change,
at which time it will begin showing up on my phone bill.


Rudy Maceyko  <rm55+@pitt.edu> or <rtm+@cmu.edu>  Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 09:22:00 -0400
From: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Trademark Infringement
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 649, Message 7 of 8

> The rumor is that DEC agreed to exchange licences, on condition that
> the vacuum cleaner company stop using their slogan:

> 	"Nothing SUCKS like a VAX!!"

Can we squeeze in one more article before the thread is killed for
being off-topic?  Here's what the Jargon File (version 2.9.10) says
about that.

| :VAX: /vaks/ n. 1. [from Virtual Address eXtension] The most
|    successful minicomputer design in industry history, possibly
|    excepting its immediate ancestor, the PDP-11.  Between its release
|    in 1978 and its eclipse by {killer micro}s after about 1986, the
|    VAX was probably the hacker's favorite machine of them all, esp.
|    after the 1982 release of 4.2 BSD UNIX (see {BSD}).  Esp.
|    noted for its large, assembler-programmer-friendly instruction set
|    --- an asset that became a liability after the RISC revolution.
|    2. A major brand of vacuum cleaner in Britain.  Cited here because
|    its alleged sales pitch, "Nothing sucks like a VAX!" became a
|    sort of battle-cry of RISC partisans.  It is sometimes claimed that
|    this slogan was *not* actually used by the Vax vacuum-cleaner
|    people, but was actually that of a rival brand called Electrolux
|    (as in "Nothing sucks like..."); your editors have not yet
|    been able to verify either version of the legend.  It is also
|    claimed that DEC actually entered a cross-licensing deal with the
|    vacuum-Vax people that allowed them to market VAX computers in the
|    U.K. in return for not challenging the vacuum cleaner trademark in
|    the U.S.


Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 11:38 PDT
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AT&T Using AOS Slime Tactics?
Reply-To: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 642, Message 7 of 10

Alan Boritz <72446.461@CompuServe.COM> writes:

> When I lost my patience and told the AT&T operator to, "... forget
> it, I'll use MCI," the phone went dead!

AT&T's connections that allow it to process coin-paid calls (TSPS and
later) also give it virtually total control over the telephone. All
the operator in question had to do was fail to hit the 'release' key
and the phone would stay connected to the AT&T system indefinitely.

> Have you ever heard of AT&T using sleazy AOS tactics like that?  And
> has Michigan Bell moved from an arm's length of AT&T, to a finger, or
> whisper's length (or closer yet) to allow AT&T to disable pay phones
> at will (perhaps some imagined anti-fraud protection)?

AT&T cannot disable pay phones at will, but it can fail to release a
phone that has connected to it for the purpose of making a call. This
is nothing new, is not a conspiracy to grab business for AT&T, is not
a new partnership between Michigan Bell and AT&T, and IS available to
the other carriers if they wanted to get off their respective cans and
put it in. But then, the ability to carry coin-paid calls does not
really excite the three-piece suits at MCI and Sprint.

> Do you think Michigan Bell gives the OCC's the same access to their
> pay phones to help THEM cut down on fraud?

This has nothing to do with fraud. It does have something to do with
the OCCs' lack of interest in the relatively low-profit ability to
handle coin-paid calls from utility pay phones.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115
    john@zygot.ati.com      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !
From: kenny@osf.org (Kenneth Crudup)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Ring Suppression
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:17:32 GMT
Organization: Open Software Foundation
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 631, Message 4 of 13

In article <telecom12.620.10@eecs.nwu.edu> jacksch@insom.eastern.com
(Eric Jacksch) writes:

> Does anyone know a simple way to stop the ring signal from getting to
> the telephone without interfering with normal use?

Well, this won't help you, but it does remind me of a story. (You
might wanna use this method if you want to eliminate ringing *and*
service :-).

Back when I was a kid, I knew a little about electronics, in the
"little knowledge" == "dangerous thing" sense. The telephone was the
most fascinating electronic device of my poor childhood, so it was the
source of a lot of experimentation. I had the idea of attaching a neon
lamp to the ring and tip of the house phone, sans current limiting
resistor, ( ...a little knowledge ... ), so that incoming calls would
make it light. I had a couple of people call me to try out my new
device, but they never seemed to call back, despite their reports to
the contrary that they did. They also wanted to know why I kept
hanging up on them.

Turns out that the ring voltage would make the neon ionize to the
point of conduction, and that was evidently enough time to make
whatever Indiana BT switch that was serving Miller (a suburb of Gary)
IN realize "off hook". Since the ringing voltage then ceased, the neon
went back to open ciruit, the switch registered "on hook", and the
line was again free. Because of the short period of the
neon/IBT-switch "circuit", the mechanical bell clapper of our phones
never had a chance to overcome inertia.


Kenneth R. Crudup, Contractor, OSF DCE QA
OSF, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA 02142	+1 617 621 7306
kenny@osf.osf.org	OSF has nothing to do with this post.
Date: Wednesday, 19 Aug 1992 08:52:23 EDT
From: Jahangir Momin <CUNYVM!LYNCC.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: What Number am I Calling From?
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 647, Message 7 of 11

I had a similar problem once, but then I wasn't in a 'hurry' to find
out the number, and as I planned to use'that'phone 'frequently', I
decided to place a call from that phone using my calling card.  The
next phone bill dsiplayed 'that' number.


Jahangir Momin   (lyncc@cunyvm.cuny.edu)
From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: My Email Address
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:17:44 GMT
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 648, Message 2 of 10

> [Moderator's Note: I hope responses to Mr. King get through okay. The
> address on his email is one of the strangest I have ever seen.   PAT]

The address is a string of DEC VAX machines with mail routed Via
DECNET/VAXMAIL. Each name is a separate machine and you only see this
when the message is manualy routed ie: the user actually has to type
in the exact route. You really have to understand the associated
network to do this, since it's usually not ever documented this way.


John Rice     K9IJ    rice@ttd.teradyne.com
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 13:09:46 GMT
From: vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AT&T Digital Answering Machine II
Organization: SwitchView Inc., Waterloo, Ontario
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 654, Message 8 of 10

In article <telecom12.637.4@eecs.nwu.edu> schuster@panix.com (Michael
Schuster) writes:

> Now I see the AT&T 1339 being advertised and guess what new features
> it has ...

Does it support CLASS?  I have an AT&T 1337 that I bought a year ago.
I'm quite happy with it but now I would like a machine that uses CLID
information to stamp the calls.  Any one now of one?  I'm hoping the
new AT&T machine does.


Vance Shipley   vances@xenitec.on.ca   
vances@ltg.uucp    ..uunet.ca!xenitec!vances
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 23:22:13 -0400
From: shuford@cs.utk.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Proposed Stratus Computer Newsgroup
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 634, Message 11 of 12

The following Request for Discussion recently appeared in the Usenet
"news.groups.announce".  This may interest some readers of TELECOM
Digest because the fault-tolerant machines made by Stratus Computer
Inc. are often found controlling telephone switching equipment.  The
discussion will be conducted in "news.groups" on Usenet.

> From: rmwise@mcigate.apdev.mci.com (Bob_Wise)
> Subject: RFD: comp.sys.stratus
> Keywords: Stratus, VOS, FTX, fault tolerant, news, mailing list
> Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1992 18:45:05 GMT

> comp.sys.stratus request for discussion
> ---------------------------------------

> Name    : comp.sys.stratus

> Charter : Discussions about the Stratus (and IBM System/88) hardware and
>           software.  Note that the operating system software covered
>           will include VOS, FTX I (ATT 5.3), and FTX II, (ATT 5.4).

> Status  : Unmoderated.
From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: The Second Phone Call
Date: 15 Aug 92 16:21:34 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 632, Message 13 of 13

And when he attempted the next phone call, poor Mr. Bell couldn't get
through to Mr. Watson because his experimental telephone switch was
being used to sell concert tickets.
 

J. Brad Hicks    mhs!mc!Brad_Hicks@attmail.com
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:32:32 GMT
From: dwford@uswnvg.com (Don Ford)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Deterioration of POTS
Organization: U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 649, Message 5 of 8

Pat Fargo 6266 (ebupaf@ebu.ericsson.se) wrote:

> Bellcore was supposedly set up to be somewhat of a controlling body,
> but from my last experiences with it, nobody listened to it.
 
Bellcore was specifically NOT supposed to be a controlling body.  That
is what the anti-trust suit was all about.  They are a resource
jointly owned by the seven RBOCs and Cincinnati Bell. Their charter
only allows the enforcement of standards in areas that affect the
interworking of the local phone companies for national defense
purposes.


Don Ford   U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc.
(206) 450-8585   #include <std.disclaimer>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:23:45 GMT
From: kovar@world.std.com (David C Kovar)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: MCI Account Illegally Created in My Name: How to Handle This?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 623, Message 10 of 11

  I finally talked to someone at MCI who apparently knew what they
were talking about. A few notes from that conversation:

  1) The calls originated from a prison. According to the investigative
unit at MCI, this is pretty common.

  2) MCI can't start calling all the numbers on a bill because it
would construe harassment. They said that it would be extremely
unlikely that I'd get in any trouble for doing it myself.

  3) MCI requires a credit card and a SSN before opening a calling
card account. No credit card was requested in this case, and the SSN
was bogus.  No surprise there.

  4) The "I lost my card" call apparently was placed before they send
out the original card, so only one card was ever sent out, which
explains why I only received one, the replacement. I originally
believed that the first card had been intercepted.

  5) They also advised me to check to see if my LD carrier had been
changed.  It hadn't.

  6) Case basically closed.

  Thanks to everyone for their input!


David
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 23:28:29 -0700
From: jpk@ingres.com (Jon Krueger)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Who Administers the 800 Numberspace?
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 634, Message 10 of 12

You can get an 800 number from MCI, Sprint, others.  Who administers
the numberspace?  If I get (800) FOO-BARK from MCI, what tells Sprint
they can't give someone else the number?  Is the numberspace
partitioned among carriers?  Or what?

Also, when someone dials 1-800-FOO-BARK, how does the right carrier
make the connection?


Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com  


[Moderator's Note: Bellcore allocates the space. The prefix, or first
three digits following the area code detirmine the carrier. Each
carrier has a certain number of three digit codes they are allowed to
use and all telcos recognize those codes as belonging to the carrier
in question, and hand the call off to them.   PAT]
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 21:22:58 GMT
From: mailrus!gatech!eecom!wberbeni@uunet.UU.NET (W. Berbenich)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: What Number am I Calling From?
Organization: Georgia Tech
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 632, Message 8 of 13

In article <telecom12.614.2@eecs.nwu.edu> ricochet@spatula.rent.com
(Rick O'Shea) writes:

> Is there a way to get the number of the phone you're calling from?
> For example, the payphone in my laundromat isn't marked and the store
> owner says he doesn't know what it is. There's times when it would be
> more convenient to have somebody call me back, but if I don't know the
> number, how can they?

If you are a subscriber to the AT&T EasyReach 700 service, you can
forward your calls "to the number you are calling from."  The service
will read back that number to you.  You can then abort the call
without actually activating (or changing) the forwarding.

I don't know whether it is ANI or another method which is used to
identify the number you are calling from.  I haven't experimented much
with it yet.


Bill Berbenich - School of EE, DSP Lab
From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Dial a #, Connect Quicker?
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:14:13 GMT
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 645, Message 4 of 17

The Moderator mentions how hitting # at various phases of a calling
card call would speed the process.  One question that I have not been
able to answer myself is why it helps to hit # after entering an
additional destination number for a calling card call (that is, after
hitting # to terminate the first call).  I can't think of a situation
where it would be expecting more than 11 digits, but it definately
waits for more.  If you hit # after the 11th digit, you get a "Thank
you for using AT&T" message right away.  With no #, there is a timeout
on the order of a few seconds.  Does anyone know why this is?


Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Neophyte Long Distance Questions
Date: 15 Aug 92 05:35:19 GMT
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 633, Message 4 of 10

daniels@xstor.com (Daniel A. Segel) writes:

> I have a few questions about just what is going on when I place a call
> from work (near San Jose, CA) to, say, Japan.

> There are two major variables that seem to change for every call I
> make.

> Number one is that sometimes there is a long delay between what I say
> and the answer I get from the other person, which can lead to real
> difficulty in carrying on a conversation. This delay is not always
> there, however.

> Secondly, the line noise is sometimes considerably higher than other
> times.

> Is this in some way related to calls going through a satellite versus
> going through cables under the ocean? What are the distance involved?
> I thought the satellite were in geosycnhronous orbit about 22,000
> miles out, but even that distance should only delay the signal about
> .25 seconds (there and back). Is one method of carrying the signal
> inherently more noisy than the other?

Actually it's .5 seconds. You forgot that the signal has to travel the
full loop.

You say "Hello" .125 sec; voice reaches satellite .25 sec; voice
reaches other party (variable delay in audio-electrochemical
intrerface and processor :-) they respond  .375+x; their response
reaches satellite .5+x; you hear their response.

With an undersea cable you've got a full loop distance of less than
12,000 miles. say .1 seconds?


Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 13:18:58 GMT
From: vixen!jadams@uunet.UU.NET (26070-adams)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: What CLASS Features Are Available?
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 653, Message 11 of 11

In article <telecom12.639.9@eecs.nwu.edu>, hps@sdf.lonestar.org (Holt
Sorenson) writes:

> Hi. The switches that are digital in my NPA are #1 ESS, #5 ESS, and
                                                  ^^ 1A perhaps?

> DMS-100. I was wondering what CLASS features are available for these
> switches. I've heard of the SS7 switch. How does it fit in with the
> above and what are it's capabilities? Thanks in advance.

Assuming you mean 1A, then all of the above are CLASS (trademark of
Bellcore) compliant.  SS7 is not a switch but a high speed packet
switching network which routes call control signals between network
elements (for the most part, switches).  You need switches like the
ones you've mentioned plus you need the SS7 connectivity between them.

A more important issue however, is the tariffing of any or all of
these services.  The best answer on this is to contact your local
telecommunications local exchange carrier and ask.  Very often, some
CLASS services get mired in public policy and legal debate (witness
the state of Pennsylvania and Caller-ID) and thus may never be
offered.


Jack (John) Adams		| Bellcore RRC 4B-259
(908) 699-3447 {Voice}		| (908) 336-2871 {Facsimile}
jadams@vixen.bellcore.com	| kahuna@attmail.com
Date: 15 Aug 92 04:55:19 GMT
From: wyg9633@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Wooed Sun)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Ameritech Complete MasterCard
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 631, Message 9 of 13

beirne@rtsg.mot.com (Michael G Beirne) writes:

> In article <1992Aug3.092204.6510@samba.oit.unc.edu> Nigel.Allen@bbs.
> oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:

>> As someone requested, here are the details on the Ameritech Complete
>> MasterCard. I don't have one, so this information is taken from an
>> Illinois Bell publication.

>> Interest rate: 
>> 14.9 percent for balances of $2,000 and up
>> 17.4 percent for balances under $2,000. (subject to monthly adjustments)

> and 19.8 percent for balances under $500.

Since the information given above didn't look like what I had seen, I
checked a slip which came along with my monthly bill.  OK, this is
what I understand from the slip.  Their APR is *no more fixed*
starting 8/1/92; it varies from month to month.  Say x is "the highest
Prime Rate published in the {Wall Street Journal} on the third Tuesday
of the month preceding that month in which the billing period begins".
If your balance is $2000 or greater, the apr is (x+8.4)%.  If your
balance is less, the apr is (x+10.9)% The numbers quoted above (14.9
and 17.4) are the rates when x is *assumed* to be 6.5%.  The monthly %
rate is, of course, apr/12 (1.242% and 1.450% for the above case).
But I do not find any special apr for balances under $500.  That's my
understanding.  If I am wrong, please someone post a correction.


email to: w-yang@uiuc.edu (wyg9633@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu)