Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: drilex!dricejb@husc6.harvard.edu (Craig Jackson drilex1)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting?
Message-ID: <11641@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 2 Sep 90 02:39:44 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA
Lines: 67
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 615, Message 7 of 9


In article <11470@accuvax.nwu.edu> v116kznd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 605, Message 8 of 10

>In article <11444@accuvax.nwu.edu>, mje99!mje@gargoyle.uchicago.edu
>(Mark J Elkins) writes...

>>As one customer used to do ... dedicate a phone line just for modem
>>use.  His cost was 2 X monthly rental which was 18 Rand X 2 which is
>>about $13 a month for the total cost of the line - etc (both ends).
>>When the PO found out - they were not too happy - they developed some
>>manual routine of disconecting him some time about 5pm each night - so
>>he was forced to make at least one call a day.  They don't like people
>>doing this, as it competes with their own 'data-line' service which
>>costs a lot more per month.

>Are they, the phone company(s), allowed to do this?  I've never heard
>of a maximum period of time for a phone call.  I consulted my phone
>book, and the term it uses is untimed.  I'd call the customer
>representatives once a day and request a credit.  After all, my phone
>call was interrupted by them, and so their "equipment failure"
>required me to make a second phone call.  Seems appropriate to me.  I
>ask about this, because I can quite easily see myself doing something
>similiar in the future.

Years ago the way to handle play-by-play coverage of a college
basketball game, etc was for the radio station (or network) to order a
'radio loop' from the arena to the origination point.  This was a
dedicated circuit, which was valid during the period of the game.
(Typically, it actually was put up the preceding business day.)

Around about 1970, the tariffs in Virginia (where I worked at a
student radio station) changed so that it became cheaper to have a
POTS line installed in the press box, and send the game back via an
ordinary long-distance call.  (I mean a POTS line installed *just* for
the event -- I never saw the tariffs, but this is certainly true.)
This use of an ordinary long-distance call was not a subterfuge--the
TELCO craft people knew all about it, and I believe that the business
office recommended it.

The service for the POTS long-distance call was generally just as good
as a radio loop offered in the way of bandwidth, etc.  However, it
came with fewer guarantees.  Regular radio loops had their punchdowns
marked and other steps to ensure continuous service.

One time during a football game, the coverage was interrupted partway
through the game.  It was restored in just a few minutes.  What had
happened was that the long-distance call simply dropped during the
middle of the broadcast, and had to be re-dialed.  Obviously someone
was upset, because we found out what had happend.  It seemed that this
game was coming from some place with older equipment in the frame.
After the call had been live for several hours, some part of this
equipment was overheating.  The person manning the frame noticed the
problem, and disconnected the call manually.  (Of course, he didn't
listen in -- that would be an unnecessary violation of privacy.)

So at least in this case, the 'equipment problem' was real.  I don't
know if any monetary relief was in order due to the interruption.  But
I'm pretty sure that the TELCO has themselves covered so they don't
have to fork out, or forgo charges, when a call runs so long that it
causes equipment failure.


Craig Jackson
dricejb@drilex.dri.mgh.com
{bbn,axiom,redsox,atexnet,ka3ovk}!drilex!{dricej,dricejb}