HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date:  2 APR 92 12:55:25 EDT
From: shapiro@trade.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: On the Trail of the Encrypting Motorola Cordless Phone!
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 299, Message 8 of 9

> After discussing what I was looking for they informed me it was the:

>	America Series:  Motorola "Secure Clear" Cordless phone
>			 Model 300 & 500.

Thanks for the update. Would you happen to have a phone number or name
or list of distributors of these phones?

I would like to check one out. 

I am located in Eastern MA.

Thanks.


Regards,

Steve.
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: SWB and BBSs
Date: 12 Apr 92 13:30:04 GMT
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 315, Message 1 of 11

In article <telecom12.310.8@eecs.nwu.edu> caladan!seanews!rocque@
seattleu.edu (peter marshall) writes:

> The 3/11 SWB filing would allow residential-based BBSs to operate at
> residential rates if no remuneration is directly or indirectly
> solicited or required, and use is confined to four or fewer flat-rated
> residential lines.

There goes the stupid line limit again. Four lines instead of three,
but they're milking it for all it's worth. If anyone on this list gets
a chance to discuss this with their local PUC, make sure they do their
best to scotch this serpent. If anyone on this list is part of the
group of sysops involved in this case, would you care to explain what
you got in exchange for this?  Or did SWB just browbeat you into
submission?


Peter da Silva
From: roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Old Cord Board on Display in New York
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:14:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.300.8
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 300, Message 8 of 11


	This is for you phone history buffs in New York.  I just
happened to notice that AIN Plastics, on Park Avenue just below 23rd
St, has an old model 556 cord board on display in their window (along
with a "not for sale" sign).  If you're into this sort of stuff, you
should go check it out.  I don't know too much about this stuff, so I
don't know how rare one of these things is, or how old it might be
(perhaps somebody else could fill in the details).  The only reason I
knew it was a model 556 is because there was an instruction manual
that went along with it.

	Coming out of the desk-top is a rotary dial with the number
"312-227-3400" in the central label.  Anybody recognize that area code
and exchange?  I was a little bit curious about the various lines on
the board (there seemed to be about 20 lines).  Many are labeled with
what are apparantly extensions of the main 227-3400 number, but some
are labeled with 800 numbers.  I thought 800 numbers were a relatively
new thing; it seemed odd to see them on a piece of equipment that was
obviously this old.

	I have no idea why AIN plastics has it on display, especially
considering that the closest to a piece of plastic that's probably in
the whole thing is maybe some rubber or bakelite.


[Moderator's Note: 312 is of course Chicago ... and AIN Plastics has
an office here at 1704 North Milwaukee Avenue. They've had the phone
number CAPitol 3400 (or 227-3400) for many years. 800 numbers have
been available for perhaps 30 years; my first recollection of them was
in about 1968 however.   PAT]
From: davep@u.washington.edu (David Ptasnik)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: ISDN Interface for Norstar
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:12:00 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 299, Message 3 of 9

bray@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Mike Bray) wrote:

> Does anyone make any devices for connecting a computer to a Northern
> Telecom Norstar Meridian small business phone switch?  The phone sets
> use some sort of "ISDN-like" protocol for communication with the
> switch.  A friend would like to connect a NeXT or Mac directly to the
> digital side without having to put in an analog line conversion box
> and a modem.  

Northern Telecom makes such an interface that let's you communicate
across a Norstar system.  The box plugs directly into a Norstar set on
one side, and the PC/Terminal on the other.  This gives the PC a
separate adress from the set it's plugged into.  It supports
communication speeds up to 19.2.  It is also an exterior Hayes
compatible 2400b modem.  Thus a PC attached to a Norstar sytem thru
this box could directly communicate with another PC or, say, a printer
that is also connected to the same Norstar system with another box, at
19.2k baud.

If you want to go thru the CO you have a different problem.  As you
are communicating from place to place using a CO provided analog
circuit, you need to use a modem.  If you have enough communication
demand you could install a digital circuit.  At this point it would
have to be from your PC to your buddies PC.  It is my understanding
that a T-1 card, to be released in the next year I think, will be the
first digital CO interface for the Norstar.  In theory, I imagine you
could hook up a single digital circuit to their interface box, and run
that directly into the Norstar KSU.  I'm not sure if that would work,
or how the data would be switched to the correct set, but it might be
worth a try.

All of this info is a recent acquisition.  I was at a Norstar
demonstration last week, and was asking some of these same questions.
I suppose that is a warining.  You are getting my impression of
information given at a sales pitch.  Sorta fills you with confidence,
don't it :).


Dave	davep@u.washington.edu
From: feoh@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Patti)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Methods of Accessing the Internet From Tymnet
Date: 16 Apr 92 13:56:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.321.4
Organization: A humble guest of the Free Software Foundation
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 321, Message 4 of 16

Hello.  I'm a college student that will be graduating in one month and
moving to a less than metropolitan area.  As such there are no local
Internet Dial-ins and I have been trying to do research on methods
that I could still maintain my net access using Tymnet.

Our town only has a Tymnet node.  Telenet doesn't think our area is
big enough it would seem (Outer Worcester County, Massachusetts,
Leominster, Fitchburg, etc) But we *DO* have a Tymnet node.

I've heard various suggestions from various people on the topic, and
since I have read discussions on this group about Starlink/Tymnet
before I figured this might be the place to look..

The suggestions I've gotten have basically been: (a) become a StarLink
subscriber and use it to call the dial-in that I currently use, or (b)
get an NUI and use Tymnet's dial-ins, or even better find a company
that has an x25 -> internet gateway they'd be wiling to sell time on.

Does anyone have any pros/cons to either approach? Ideally I'd love to
somehow get a flat-fee type service similar to what PSI provides to
it's customers (unfortunately their closest dial-in is an area code
away.)

I would appreciate any suggestions anyone could give me, Please send
email (as well as posting to the group if you feel the suggestion
could be of use).


Thank you in advance,

Feoh@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Chris Patti | feoh@gnu.ai.mit.edu: A guest of the Free Software Foundation
From: dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer
Date: 3 Apr 92 14:03:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.297.13
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 297, Message 13 of 13

In article <telecom12.292.2@eecs.nwu.edu>, dgdhome!ddavis@uunet.UU.NET
(Don Davis) writes:

> It might be useful to hear the experiences of those net.people who
> already have Caller-ID.  Has anyone learned anything especially
> useful?  Or is it still too early to reach any conclusions?

For the past six months, my UNIX system has been quietly compiling a
list of the numbers associated with inbound calls to my business and
my residence lines.  Each inbound call record consists of one line of
text that gets appended to an ascii file.  During the peak inbound
calling time, I can run a tail -f of the file, and watch the inbound
calls scroll by.

A recent call from a telemarketer sounded too familiar.  I asked the
caller why they called me so often ... trying to sell me a paper I
already read.  While I had the caller on the line, I did a grep of the
file, piped to wc, which told me that in the past six months, the same
number had called here sixteen times!  I was able to give the caller
the date and time of each attempt.

My Call*Block list is already full, so I had to delete an entry to add
the new one.

Useful? -- I don't know yet.


Dave Levenson		Internet: dave@westmark.com
Westmark, Inc.		UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA		Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: 908 647 6857
From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Immediate ANI From Your 800 Number
Date: 12 Apr 92 15:07:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.314.7
Organization: AT&T
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 314, Message 7 of 12

In article <telecom12.310.4@eecs.nwu.edu> yazz@locus.com (Bob Yazz) writes:

>> [Moderator's Note: Your assumption is not wrong. You will get ANI with
>> your monthly phone bill, at least from many carriers. Real time ANI is
>> a bit more expensive, however.

> What companies are currently offering real-time (immediate) ANI on 800
> numbers, and how much more is "a bit more expensive", Pat?

> I am aware of only MCI providing this, and requiring a T1 link to do
> so.  This is out of my acceptable price range for a residential 800
> number.

So far as I know, all carriers that provide billing number delivery
and/or dialed number delivery to 800 customers require a direct
connection to the carrier's switch (e.g. a T1); it can be either a
straight T1, in which case the information is delivered inband, or an
ISDN PRI, in which case the information is delivered out of band in
the SETUP message.

The service is not offered on what we call "switched egress" 800 (800
service where the 800 number is translated to a POTS number and routed
to the serving LEC for completion -- residential 800 services work
this way), because the network connections to pass this information
between he IXC and LEC networks -- SS7, the same as needed for
"interLATA CLASS" -- are not yet deployed sufficiently widely.

Conceivably, at some point in the future when SS7 Network Interconnect
reaches more widespread deployment, you could imagine 800 service
providers providing billing number or dialed number delivery to
switched egress 800 numbers; however, there is a technical limitation
in that the existing specifications for Caller ID only permit delivery
of one number, which is assumed by the LEC to be the calling party
number.  An IXC could populate that with a billing number before
passing it out to the LEC if it so desired; however, dialed number
could be tougher.

As usual, these points are not meant to represent AT&T's position,
policy, or future business plans ...


David G Lewis                              AT&T Bell Laboratories
david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej     Switching & ISDN Implementation
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 11:27:32 EST
From: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Call Blocking
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 309, Message 2 of 8

If you use call blocking to block calls from me, what will I hear when
I call your number?

Will I get charged for the call?
 

Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390     UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org or levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu 


[Moderator's Note: The message here, which seems to be common, is "The
number you have dialed has activated call screening, meaning they are
not accepting calls at this time. Please try your call again later."
There is no inclusion of the number you dialed in the message, nor is
there any reference to *whose* calls are not being accepted.  Any
lines on your end which are part of the same billing group equally get
screened if I enter just your directory number. You don't get charged
for an incompleted call.   PAT]
From: drears@pica.army.mil (Dennis G. Rears )
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Comp.society.privacy Passes Vote
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:31:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.320.5
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 320, Message 5 of 7


  The vote on the newsgroup comp.society.privacy (moderated) passed.
The newsgroup will be created on Monday, 20 April.  The first article
will be a welcome message and the charter.

  Depending on submissions, there may be one final issue of telecom-
priv. It will be replaced with the Computer Privacy Digest with an
email address of comp-privacy@pica.  army.mil and the request address
of comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil.  For the next 90 days the
telecom-privs address will work.

  All comp.society.privacy submissions will be forwarded to
comp-privacy@pica.army.mil just like all comp.dcom.telecom submissions
are forwarded to telecom@eecs.nwu.edu.  I will publish the email list
in digest form and send to the newsgroup individual articles.

  If there is a strong objection to the folding of the telecom-priv
list into comp-privacy, I will consider keeping it as a separate list.
Based on past responses I don't think there will be any.  All
subscribers will be moved over to the new list.  I would ask that drop
requests be held until you start receiving comp.society.privacy at
your site.

  I am actively soliciting articles on fresh topics for the first
issue.  I am looking for fresh topics that will stimulate discussions.

The charter for the new group:

comp.society.privacy    Effects of technology on privacy (Moderated)

   This newsgroup is to provide a forum for discussion on the effect of
   technology on privacy. All to often technology is way ahead of the
   law and society as it presents us with new devices and
   applications.  Technology can enhance and detract from privacy.
   This newsgroup will be gatewayed to an internet mailing list.


			Dennis G. Rears
MILNET:   drears@pica.army.mil     UUCP:  ...!uunet!cor5.pica.army.mil!drears
INTERNET: drears@pilot.njin.net    USPS:  Box 210, Wharton, NJ 07885
Phone(home): 201.927.8757	   Phone(work): 201.724.2683/(DSN) 880.2683
USPS:        SMCAR-FSS-E, Bldg 94, Picatinny Ars, NJ 07806


[Moderator's Note: And my best wishes to this new newsgroup and Digest.
Long time TELECOM Digest readers will recall that Telecom-Priv had its
beginning as an offshoot of this Digest. I'm happy for Dennis that it
has worked out so well with the hard effort he has given it.   PAT]
From: linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cat Named George, 3 Way Calling, Speed Calling 8, Speakerphone
Date: 7 Apr 92 07:18:37 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 304, Message 14 of 16

In article <telecom12.299.9@eecs.nwu.edu> eli writes:

> Yesterday I got a summary of available services from Pac Bell and
> apparently there is no speed calling 30 out here!  I wonder if NYNEX
> still offers it ...

Yes, there is.  It's described under "Description of COMMSTAR Services"
in the front of your white pages.  (Page A14 in the San Francisco book)


Linc Madison  ==  Linc@Tongue1.Berkeley.EDU
From: wolfgang@wsrcc.com (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: New AT&T Videophone
Date: 11 Apr 92 01:03:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.308.10
Organization: W S Rupprecht Computer Consulting, Fremont CA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 308, Message 10 of 11

ole@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Ole J. Jacobsen) writes:

> By now I'm sure you've all heard about the new AT&T picturephone, soon
> to appear in all the AT&T phone stores and to retail at $1500 or so.
> What I don't understand is why the model number is 2500. Are they
> really not aware that the standard Western Electric Touch Tone phone
> which has been around for 20 years (Pat?) has ALWAYS been called "a
> 2500 set" by everyone in the industry?

Perhaps they are waiting for some poor slob to order a batch of a
hundred 2500's?


Wolfgang Rupprecht    wolfgang@wsrcc.com (or) wsrcc!wolfgang
Snail Mail:           39469 Gallaudet Drive, Fremont, CA 94538-4511
From: samir@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Samir Agarwal)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Sparc Audio Output and Telephones
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:48:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.321.2
Organization: Mentor Graphics Corp. - IC Group
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 321, Message 2 of 16

I have known this newsgroup about five minutes now. So if this
question does not belong here, please spare me the flames.

Does the following make any sense:

What (if anything) happens if I hook the audio output (wires only) of
a sparc to the telephone cables and run a program that produces the
appropriate tones for a number that one has to call on the phone.

1. Nothing happens
2. Potentially screws up sparc
3. Potentially screws up phone
4. Dials the number.

Is this documented/attempted before? Any suggestions and sources for
further info will be greatly appreciated.


Thanks,

Samir
From: int547e@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Ed "Duke" Cation)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer
Date: 8 Apr 92 10:37:40 GMT
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 304, Message 4 of 16

nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:

> If you are called by a junk caller, you post the number to a USENET
> group.  An application then downloads all junk numbers identified by
> anyone on the net, and applies them to your incoming calls.  If this
> could be made effortless, it could be really useful.

And what if I chose to post all the numbers of people I wanted to
frustrate?  My mother-in-law ... my ex-wife ... my bank-manager ...
everyone in the IRS ...

Suddenly their calls are uncompletable.

Yeah, your right, that *IS* a good idea :) Where shall we start?  RFD:
comp.dcom.telecom.junk.numbers


Ed
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:41:25 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 304, Message 7 of 16

Dave.Leibold@f524.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dave Leibold) writes:

> How many out there have problems with callers hanging up the moment
> you answer the phone and say "hello"? Any ideas on what most cases of
> the hang-up artist are? Autodialers looking for modem carrier?
> Obscene callers not getting the right kind of voice?

How about someone dialing the wrong number, realizing that the answer
isn't the one they expected (like "Acme Industries, May I help you?"),
and being too impolite and/or embarassed to say "Sorry, wrong number."

I'd love to go out with you, but I'm attending the opening of my
garage door.


[Moderator's Note: The way I deal with silent hang-ups here is to
simply use *69 to call them back, and when they answer, ask them what
they wanted. Nine of every ten lie about it and claim they did not
call, but auto-callback has yet to lead me astray.  These are calls
from private residences by the way, not DID trunks or back lines on
PBX systems.   PAT]
From: mc!Brad_Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas
Date: 13 Apr 92 13:58:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.322.3
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 322, Message 3 of 10

In TCD 12.314, Robert.Lindh@eos.ericsson.se (Robert Lindh) suggested:
 
> I think this could be a service sold by a email-system. (To receive
> email and send it as a FAX to given telephone number.)
 
Already exists.  On CompuServe, send mail to ">FAX:nnx-nnn-nnnn".  On
AT&T Mail, send mail to "mhs!fax!nnxnnnnnnn".  On MCI Mail, fill in
the name followed by "(EMS)", then at the EMS prompt enter "FAX", then
at the MBX prompt enter the phone number.  Price runs around $2 per
page; there is an extra charge for letterhead, and they send text
only.
 
Hmmm ... I wounder would would happen if somebody on FidoNet sent mail
to UseNet at 1:114/15.0 with "To: mhs!fax!<number>@attmail.com" on the
first line?  Maybe Internet users have fax email, too ...
 

J. Brad Hicks
Internet: mhs!mc!Brad_Hicks@attmail.com
X.400:    c=US admd=ATTmail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad
 
I am not an official MasterCard spokesperson, and the message above
does not contain official MasterCard statements or policies.


[Moderator's Note: What you are suggesting won't work. It *used to*
work, in the early days of the gateway between Internet and both MCI
and AT&T Mail ... until they caught on. Now they screen them out.  PAT]
From: brown@NCoast.ORG (Stan Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: AT&T AnyHour Saver -- Plan Details
Date: 7 Apr 92 02:41:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.310.6
Organization: Oak Road Systems, Cleveland Ohio USA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 310, Message 6 of 12

AT&T's brochure for the AnyHour Saver (SM) Plan came in the mail today.

It says explicitly that to make up the hour covered by the $10 monthly
fee, "Calls made Monday through Friday between 8AM and 5PM are counted
first, then calls made during the evening Monday through Friday
between 5PM and 11PM, and finally calls made during the night and on
weekends."

Additional minutes are charged at 20 cents a minute 8AM-5PM weekdays
and 11 cents a minute at all other times.  This applies to
direct-dialed interstate calls including calls to USVI and Puerto
Rico.  "Calls not covered include: operator-assisted,
person-to-person, calling card, directory assistance, cellular, 700,
900 and 976 calls."

For comparison, under Reach Out America only calls between 10 pm and 8
am were at the 11 cent rate; evening calls were at a discount from
AT&T standard rates -- not to mention the fact that I had to be sure
enough of my calls were made after 10 pm to use up my hour.

There's a 5% discount from regular AT&T rates on "direct-dialed calls
to over 250 countries and locations" and on "AT&T direct-dialed long
distance calls in your own state."  That covers more than I might have
thought: AT&T carries calls from Cleveland Heights to Hudson, a
distance of maybe 20 miles.

BTW, there was no charge to convert to this plan from my Reach Out
America 24-hour plan ($8.70 a month), and it was set up the day after
I called to request it.  The brochure gives the phone number as 1 800
222-0300 (punctuated thusly).


Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA   brown@ncoast.org