HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pat@wrs.com (Patrick Boylan)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: CCITT and X.25 with VxWorks
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:47:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.321.13
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 321, Message 13 of 16

Has anyone used VxWorks with CCITT or X.25 based communications?
Could you just let me know.  I don't need any great details (although
I wouldn't mind).  Thanks in advance.


Patrick Boylan, Consulting Engineer, FAE Asia/Pacific
Wind River Systems   1010 Atlantic Ave. Alameda, CA 94501
pat@wrs.com	(510) 748-4100
From: catfood@wariat.org (Mark W. Schumann)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Privacy Question
Date: 9 Apr 92 01:31:00 GMT
Organization: Akademia Pana Kleksa, Publi Access UNI* Site
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 315, Message 7 of 11

MJK2660@RITVM.BITNET (Mike Koziol) writes:

> Question: Any legal, liability or ethical issues involved? I've heard
> of some controversy about telephone operators being listened in on by
> supervision but don't recall the outcome. Seems to me there is a
> confidentiality issue.

Our Moderator noted:

> the dispatchers have no valid complaint if unauthorized calls are
> overheard in the process of monitoring authorized calls.

> If the employees involved force this issue, an appropriate response
> from the Department might be that employees must begin making personal
> calls during their free time from pay telephones on the premises.  PAT]

It would seem that a reasonable compromise would be to allow personal
calls only if they can be shown not to interfere with public safety
(burden on the employee) and with the *explicit* proviso that the
calls may be monitored in real-time as well as taped.  I think it
wouldn't be too difficult to ensure the security of the supervisor's
speaker-phone as well.


Mark W. Schumann/3111 Mapledale Avenue/Cleveland, Ohio 44109-2447 USA
 ...!wariat!catfood         catfood@wariat.org          CIS 73750,3527
From: michael.scott.baldwin@att.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: More Cellular Gotchas
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:33:00 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 318, Message 6 of 7

Add these to your list of "Things to Watch Out For" with cellular
service.  I have Cellular One service in NJ (A), which I like better
than Bell Atlantic or NYNEX (B), but there are still problems:

1. On the brochures, they say they don't charge airtime for calls
unless they are answered or you wait 40 seconds.  Well, if you place a
0+ calling card call, you *always* get charged airtime.  Even if you
calling card wasn't validated.  Even if you hang up before the
"<blong>".  Even if the number is busy, no answer, or invalid.
"That's different" they say.  Really?  Now that they force you to use
0+ to call certain areas (NPA 809 at least), this makes it such a joy.

2. Voice mail does *not* get activated if your phone is turned off or
goes out of service while ringing.  The caller gets reorder, or
silence then a hangup.  If you're NoSvc *before* you start ringing, it
goes directly to voice mail.  If it rings four times, it goes to voice
mail.  But if it rings once or twice, then you go NoSvc, you lose.
Again, voice mail fails to catch calls that aren't completed.

3. Call forwarding to NPA 908 is not working, at least from my 201-404
mobile.  It works to NPA 201 and 212 and probably others.  I use *71
to forward, and *710 to unforward.  I was wondering how to forward to
an international number, and they couldn't tell me.  *710<anything>
gives me the confirmation tone, but always unforwards, so *71011
doesn't work (it's misleading too).  Also, you cannot dial *71-1-NPA;
it must be *71-NPA- ...

4. When you call forward, you can't get to your voice mail from a land
line, because you dial your own mobile number to access it.  However,
you *can* still get to it from your mobile by dialing your mobile
number but with 111 as the area code.
From: freiss@neurotic.sni.de (Martin Freiss)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 900 Service in Germany
Date: 2 Apr 92 10:03:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.298.4
Organization: Siemens Nixdorf Info.Sys. AG, Paderborn, Germany
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 298, Message 4 of 9

In <telecom12.291.8@eecs.nwu.edu> aimla!ruby!rudholm@uunet.UU.NET
(Mark Rudholm) writes:

> Telekom claims to have had no part in any of this but I don't imagine
> that they minded much since they gained just as much as the
> perpetrators of this deception.

Telekom has offered a 900 service (numbers that begin with 0190,
called Service 190) for some months now.

> switches.  Tone dialing is unavailable anywhere from Deutsche Telekom
> (the country's only telephone company) except recently in some VERY
> limited test-areas.  And the only place you are going to find anything
> similar to the kinds of "Custom-Calling" features that are available
> to most U.S. telephone subscribers is perhaps on a PBX.  Connecting
> any non-Telekom provided equipment to the network is forbidden, unless
> you pay for an expensive "protective-interface" (does that rhetoric

I have the feeling that I fell through hole in the space-time
continuum :-) Connecting non-Telekom equipment has been allowed for
over a year here, tone dialing is available in most bigger cities and
will be available everywhere "real soon now".

Just my 2 Pfennigs worth :-)


Martin Freiss            |freiss.pad@sni.de
SNI AG, Dept. STO SI 325 |NIC MF194
From: ST901316@PIP.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (Scott Fybush)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Massachusetts REALLY Cracks Down on COCOTs!
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:30:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.317.4
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 317, Message 4 of 8

According to the UPI Broadcast wire, Saturday 11 April 1992, not only
is Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger ORDERING NETel to
cut off service to some of the worst COCOT operators in the state, but
apparently has ordered NETel to freeze new COCOT connections for an
unspecified length of time.

I'm excited.  Of course, it merits mention that Massachusetts is one
of the few states left in which there's a strong economic incentive
left to not use a COCOT for a local call.  Local calls from NETel
phones cost 10 cents.  I've never seen a COCOT here charging less than
25 cents.  Maybe that explains why we're not quite as badly plagued by
the things as some other states (although it seems to be getting worse
here).  I still wouldn't shed a tear to see any of the pieces of junk
go away.


Scott Fybush -- ST901316@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
From: 74066.2004@CompuServe.COM (Larry Rachman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Cellular One Security??!!
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:38:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.310.9
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 310, Message 9 of 12

I've just been informed by Cellular One that I've been 'selected' for
a free two-month trial of their voice mail. All I have to do to access
it is dial my cellular number 516-528-ABCD, press #, and enter my four
digit security code.
 
What is the security code? You guessed it, ABCD!  Don't these people
ever learn??
 
I took them up on the freebie, but you'd better believe I'm going to
change that 'security' code about one nanosecond after the service is
activated. I wonder how many other users will be as paranoid?
 
 
Larry Rachman, WA2BUX    74066.2004@compuserve.com
From: Dave.Leibold@f524.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dave Leibold)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Hang-up Pirates
Date: 28 Mar 92 07:09:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.297.12
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 297, Message 12 of 13

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?

That's the sort of stuff that promotes CNID and Call Return and the
other fine CCS7-based services.


replies: dave.leibold@f524.n250.z1.fidonet.org  dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca

Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f524.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG
From: lancelot@Mais.Hydro.Qc.CA (Christian Doucet)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Ringback Service in Montreal
Date: 15 Apr 92 01:07:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.321.12
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 321, Message 12 of 16

I made some interesting experiments with the ringback number here in
Montreal. My exchange is 514-731 and I believe it's a DMS-100 as most
Bell Canada's switches are.

The ringback number is based on the phone number that you are using.
The first two digits are always 57X-XXXX and the last five are taken
from your OWN phone number thus 731-1234 would become 571-1234.

But it's not that easy to get it to ring you back.  When you dial that
number (57X-XXXX), it gives you a SECOND dialtone.  If you then hang
up for precisely one second (it's more than a flash), and then take the
phone off hook, you will hear a weird tone.  If you hang up for good
at that point, It will ring you back a few seconds later.

The funny thing is that we also have Caller*ID in Montreal and
when you use the ringback, you'll get 012-345-6789 displayed on your
Caller*ID device!

I thought you would like to know.


Christian Doucet ----- lancelot@Mais.Hydro.Qc.Ca | Hydro-Quebec
System Administrator - lancelot@Rot.Qc.Ca        | voice: + 1 514 858 7704
I speak for myself! -- #include <disclaimer.h>   | fax  : + 1 514 858 7799
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 12:15:21 PDT
From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates
Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 309, Message 3 of 8

> "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."

How would you know if it did, since there is no possible negative
evidence that you would considerable reliable?


Andrew Klossner  (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com)
                 (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)


[Moderator's Note: Because the nine who lie about it are not very
convincing, and if I browbeat them they then always admit it.   PAT]
From: MJK2660@RITVM.BITNET (Mike Koziol)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Phone Line Surge Supressors
Date: 7 Apr 92 21:53:21 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 304, Message 10 of 16


     I awoke in the middle of the night about a year ago to see green
sparks shhot out of a couple of outlets. A car had hit a utility pole
down the road and a high voltage line came in contact with the regular
flavor of power. I lost a scanner, a couple of X-10 power control
modules and an answering machine went brain dead on me. Since then I
have everything of value protected by surge supressors, including
phone lines and cable TV cable.

My TV picture was all snow one day. I bypassed the surpressor and
found that the surpressor had given it's life to protect the set. It
was manufactured by Panamax. Their response was that they would send
me a replacement in a like shipping manner that I used to send the
unit to them (I use Fed Ex, so do they, etc.). Within a week I had a
new supressor, no charge. Thay also have a insurance program that may
reimburse you if your equipment is damaged by the failure of their
product. I'll buy Panamax again. (Just a satisfied user, no affilia-
tion.)
From: ctuttle@taronga.com (Colin Tuttle)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Is Equal Access Available Everywhere?
Date: 8 Apr 92 03:38:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.301.10
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 301, Message 10 of 13

I have a question about equal access availablity.  A business
acquaintance who lives in an area near Oklahoma City.  The area is
part of the metro Oklahoma dialing area -- he has the same toll free
dialing area as someone who lived in Oklahoma City.  Because of the
MCI "Friends and Family" program, his father had suggested that he
switch to MCI to get the 20% discount.  When he tried to call he was
told that his prefix (405-277) did not offer equal access, and as such
he was unable to subscribe to MCI, (or Sprint, for that matter).  My
question is, why does he not have equal access?  Is Southwestern Bell
responsible?  Is there an FCC mandated date for equal access?
From: Phillip.Dampier@f228.n260.z1.fidonet.org (Phillip Dampier)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Arbitrator Orders AT&T to Reinstate Workers
Date: 7 Apr 92 23:01:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.301.2
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 301, Message 2 of 13

ARBITRATOR ORDERS AT&T TO RE-INSTATE HUNDREDS OF TECHNICIANS, PAY BACK WAGES

CWA (April 7) -- An arbitrator has directed AT&T to rescind the 1992
layoff of several hundred company technicians, pay their back wages
and abide by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement
negotiated with the Communications Workers of America (CWA) in 1989.
The ruling also will impact thousands of other workers who were forced
to transfer to other locations, according to CWA.

The total cost of the settlement is estimated in the millions of
dollars.  Coming within days of the re-opening of the nationwide
agreement for the 130,000 unionized workers in the company, the
decision adds more weight to union charges that the company has been
attempting to circumvent its agreement with both the CWA and the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) since that
contract was negotiated, declared CWA President Morton Bahr.

"The arbitrator quite properly found that AT&T had engaged in a
deliberate deception to proceed with a massive layoff without regard
to the seniority rights of our members," Bahr declared. The union is
determined that no employer can be permitted to dodge the requirement
of an agreement with impunity.

Arbitrator Patrick Hardin, in issuing the April 5 decision, reviewed
the bargaining history of the 1989 agreement and found that the
company had violated the spirit and the intent of the agreement after
the union had rebuffed AT&T's efforts to negotiate a less restrictive
seniority provision for one large group of technicians.

"By a substantial preponderance, the evidence shows that the parties
to the 1989 negotiations understood and agreed that the seniority
status of communications technicians with regard to layoffs would not
be impaired during the life of the agreement except by the consent of
the union," Hardin ruled.

CWA Vice President Jim Irvine (Communications and Technologies)
described the decision as a "tremendous boost" for the union's
bargaining teams now in talks with AT&T.  "The decision underscores
the importance of tough and committed bargaining, holding the
company's feet to the fire and forcing them, through every means at
our disposal, to honor those agreements.  We're delighted for the
technicians who will finally realize justice against an insensitive
and autocratic company.  We're pledged to achieve the same goals for
all of our members covered by these agreements."


Jeff Miller  Gaye Williams Mack (305) 535-0729
Communications Workers of America
From: lme.lmedistr@memo.ericsson.se (ERICSSON CORPORATE RELATIONS)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: MobiPen Press Release
Date: 6 Apr 92 13:30:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.300.7
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 7 of 11

PRESS RELEASE     1992-04-06

ERICSSON GE ANNOUNCES WIRELESS MOBILE SOLUTION FOR MICROSOFT WINDOWS
FOR PENS

Ericsson GE announced today that it is demonstrating its Mobidem
Portable Wireless Modem with Microsoft Windows operating system for
Pen Computing (Windows for Pens) at Windows World in Chicago. The
Mobidem is being used with a Windows messaging application developed
by B&M Systems that will allow messages to be sent and received via
Mobitex mobile data networks in the U.S. and Canada as well as in
international markets.

According to a study recently completed by Microsoft, 80 percent of
corporate users plan to use the same applications on both desktop PCs
and their new field-based portable pen computers.

"Many Windows for Pens users will need access to their company's
network from remote locations, so wireless connectivity will be
critical," said Greg Slyngstad, general manager, Microsoft Pen
Computing Group. "Ericsson GE's Mobidem is a perfect example of the
innovative wireless connectivity products available for pen-based
computer users."

Mobitex is a public mobile data network designed to provide automatic
nationwide roaming using packet switched wireless technology. For
additional information, please call 1-800-223-6336 or 201 265 6600.
From: Phillip.Dampier@f228.n260.z1.fidonet.org (Phillip Dampier)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: CWA Responds to President
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:58:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.320.1
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 1 of 7

STATEMENT FROM CWA PRESIDENT MORTON BAHR REGARDING BUSH'S EXECUTIVE
ORDER ON AGENCY FEE PAYERS

13 April 1992

We find it more than a little ironic that President Bush has issued
such an unnecessary and intrusive Executive Order, and has instructed
the Department of Labor to issue regulations outside of their
jurisdiction, when he has decided to delay enforcement of many other
regulations that are far more important.

One sure sign that this is a political maneuver is that Mr. Bush is
trying to go outside of the normal channels for enforcing the law.
The NLRB is the agency charged with enforcing the National Labor
Relations Act, which is the statute under which the Beck case was
decided.

This action is unheard of: Mr. Bush has never issued an order
requiring employers to inform workers of their right to organize
unions, for example.  We are not sure if Mr. Bush has the authority
under the law to do what he has done, but if he wants to inform
workers about their rights under the National Labor Relations Act,
then he should require that all of those rights be posted.  Such
information ought to be comprehensive.

The Communications Workers of America is obeying the Beck decision,
which, interestingly enough, has has very little impact on our union,
because we had an active policy on these matters prior to that
decision.  We represent over 600,000 workers, and only about one
quarter of one percent has ever asked for a dues rebate, although we
have publicized this option for ten years.

We don't think for a minute that the Bush Administration is genuinely
concerned about workers' rights.  Bush is simply trying to hobble
labor unions with all sorts of unnecessary paperwork, for purely
partisan objectives.  It's just not right, and it is not fair to
America's working people.

CWA represents over 600,000 workers in telecommunications, printing,
publishing, media health care and the public sector in the United
States and Canada.

For more information, contact:

Jeff Miller
Gaye Williams Mack
Communications Workers of America
(202) 434-1172
From: mmeyer@NeXT.COM (Morris Meyer)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: ISDN in Houston, Texas
Date: 7 Apr 92 21:14:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.302.4
Reply-To: mmeyer@NeXT.COM (Morris Meyer)
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 302, Message 4 of 10

Hubert Daugherty writes:

> MY QUESTION TO THE NET:

> Does anyone KNOW what is involved in upgrading a DMS-100 from POTS to
> ISDN?

> I would really like to telecommute at 64k bits from my NeXT computer
> to Rice.  But $1,362 dollars per year on my salary is too much.

Going from a AT&T 1AESS to a 5ESS switch costs in the millions,
whereas upgrading switch generics to support ISDN is much less.  From
what I understand, upgrading the switch generic is a software upgrade,
but still a very expensive software upgrade, since there isn't a huge
installed base of phone switches (as compared to PC's, Mac's, etc).


Morris Meyer - ISDN Project - NeXT Software - mmeyer@next.com
From: covert@covert.ENET.dec.com (John R. Covert 08-Apr-1992 1158)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 900 Service in Germany
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:22:15 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 306, Message 10 of 12

> An example of such a number was 001-610-20404xx for personal
> horoscopes.  This number is definitely routed to the USA since 00 is
> the international access prefix and 1 is the country code for North
> America. The area code 610 does not exist, ...

Well, I think you have the number wrong.  I think it's 00-61-xxx, and
since there's at least one error, the extra "1", there may be other
errors.

As you suggested, I called USP Inc. here in Boston, who referred me to
their parent company in London "Innovative Communications Europe,
LTD", +44 71 734-3345.  I spoke to one of the directors, Sue Lloyd,
who tells me that they do provide a horoscope service for Germany, and
that it is in fact provided out of Australia.  She said that one of
the current numbers is +61 1 411 285, which, in fact, does go to a
German language horoscope.  "1" numbers are not diallable from within
Australia.

Ms. Lloyd explained to me that Telecom Australia will provide this
sort of service to any company which wishes to be an information
provider.  Callers pay the normal call rate from their country to
Australia, and Telecom Australia gives a commission to the information
provider.  She said that I could contact Telecom Australia for more
details.

I wish I had paid attention to this before I went to Germany last
week, because I would have really loved to have tried the 001-610-...
version you posted.  Have _YOU_ tried it?  After all, from Germany you
can call it and see what you get, and as long as you only stay on the
line for up to 4.47 seconds it will only cost you DM0.23 (about 14
cents).

Please try the 001-... number and let us know.  I'll bet it's a mistake.


john