HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 20:17:23 GMT
From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: About a Second Line in My Home
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 5, Message 4 of 9

In article <telecom12.927.7@eecs.nwu.edu>, Ben Black <76672.2564@Compu
Serve.COM> writes:

> I've ordered a second line in my home for computer use. There is
> standard four wire cable in the wall (red/green/yellow/black.)

> Can I use the unused pair (yellow/black) for the second line, saving
> me the trouble of running a new pair all the way to the network
> interface?

You can use the second pair in a length of quad station wire for a
second line, BUT: expect to find crosstalk between the first and
second line.  How much crosstalk will depend upon how many feet of
quad you use.  Voice users probably won't interfere with each other.
Modem sounds will probably be faintly audible to voice users of the
other line.  Ringing will be the most noticable noise that bleeds
through.  A ring of your voice phone will likely cause a few dropped
bits on your modems.

I recommend, if at all possible, that you either use a separate piece
of cable, or use cable with two or more twisted pairs for multi-line
service.


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
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 19:24:25 EST
From: jeffj%jiji@uunet.UU.NET (Jeffrey Jonas)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: U.S. Telephone Billing Details and California
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 927, Message 11 of 14

I have the impression that there's some tariff/law/tradition in the
U.S. that whoever plays for the phone call is entitled to a detailed
record of the call.

AT&T, NY Tel, NJ Bell (among others) take this to mean that I as a
subscriber get a bill listing call duration, city/state and number
called (except for local calls).  ITT/Metromedia's calling card
doesn't list the number.  I thought this was the reason that the owner
of the 800 number gets a list of all callers, since they're paying the
bill.

Is this true?  Is there a tariff or law specifying the detailing of US
phone bills?

Ok, now what if a Californian uses return call (where Caller-ID was
recently rejected by the PUC).  Will the returned call show on the
phone bill with the city/state/number (as long as it's not local)?
Or will part of the identity be masked?

        ex:     Oakland, CA (415) 795-8100
            or  Oakland, CA (415) 795-81xx
            or  Oakland, CA (415) 795-xxxx
            or  Oakland, CA (415) *private

Will only California numbers be blocked, or those that are "private",
or all numbers?  Are "private" numbers passed as ANI to 800 numbers?
If so, then they should be passed to me with return call by the same
argument that I'm paying for the call.

The one time I tried "return call" in NJ, I recall seeing the $.75
surcharge but the call itself was probably local.

TELECOM readers have already mentioned that:

- in some states, the "return call" reads back the number before dialing
        (a clever way to use Caller-ID with no premisis equipment and
        probably without subscribing either.)
- using "add last call to call block" and reading back the call block
  list won't work - the number is reported as 'private'.
 
PS: (415) 795-8100 is the number for Logitech Tech Support, used for
example only.
 

Jeffrey Jonas   jeffj@panix.com


[Moderator's Note: If 'Return Last Call' causes a toll billing, then
yes, you would see the number. But this is mostly a moot point since
the amount of SS-7 connectivity between toll points is still very
limited. 99.999 percent of the time, you can't 'return last call' to a
place outside your LATA at present (or frequently outside a couple
nearby CO's), so it is doubtful you would learn the number that way.  PAT]
Date: 21 Dec 1992 18:48:18 -0500
From: syd@dsi.com (Syd Weinstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Stray Thought ... IRcordless? (was Cordless Phones)
Reply-To: syd@DSI.COM
Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc., Huntingdon Valley, PA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 914, Message 12 of 14

TELECOM Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: There are some 'cordless headsets' with a range of
> around 10-15 feet which use infra-red I believe. They seem to be quite
> expensive in my opinion. They are good for people who wear headsets at
> work and wish to walk around within a short area looking for files and
> other items as they chat with their caller.   PAT]


Quick, tell me where ... I've yet to find cordless headsets that aren't
RF.  The Plantronics and 'Hello Direct' ones are RF. (900MHz)


Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP          Elm Coordinator - Current 2.4PL17
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                 Projected 3.0 Release: ??? ?,1994
syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd      Voice: (215) 947-9900, FAX: (215) 938-0235


[Moderator's Note: Well Syd, I *thought* I saw one in the "Hello Direct"
catalog (a great thing to read by the way, call them at 1-800-HI-HELLO).
But if you say they were RF at 900 megs, then I must have been in
error. What about what's-his-name -- that other catalog guy, Drew Kaplan
or the other one, Sharper Image?  I'm sure I saw one somewhere. :(  PAT]
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 00:49 PST
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: DID as Replacement For Caller ID?
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 13, Issue 4, Message 6 of 12

TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM writes:

> It's still *very* expensive except for people who have the kind of
> money that they are willing to spend upwards of three grand to put PBX
> capability in their multi-million dollar houses.

I never claimed that CNID workarounds would be cheap or even only
moderately expensive. Actually, the most practical workaround is an
800 number delivered via direct trunk from a long distance carrier.
This is universal, unblockable, and works from anywhere in the
country. There are no pending actions before any regulatory body to
change the ability of end users from receiving callers' numbers in
real time. All it takes is money, something available to businesses
and individuals with means.

My hat is off to the activists. Once again, they have managed to keep
a useful technology out of the hands of the average person, while
businesses (you know, those nasty types who will abuse the knowledge
of your phone number when you call for inquiry) are using 800 numbers
in ever-increasingly creative ways.

It sure is a good thing that the activists pay good lip service to the
cause by disliking ANI delivery a whole lot!


John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115     |       FAX:
john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407
From: Bob_Frankston@frankston.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: New Fraud
Date: 20 Dec 92 13:36:00 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 912, Message 6 of 15

I just got an automated call from the Psychic Hotline that will reveal
my future for $1.98/min if I press "1" to accept the collect call.
Unlike TV where, in small type for those viewers capable of reading,
it tells you that your future is for entertainment purposes only, this
call is unequivocal about the promise.  I tried to flash and connect
the operator into the call, but the caller seems to have read its
future and hungup.  These are the times I wish for national Caller-ID
and ANI.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 00:28:46 GMT
From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: GTE Rural Area Phones Go Digital
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 923, Message 6 of 9

In article <telecom12.920.4@eecs.nwu.edu>, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us
(John R. Levine) writes:

>>> [GTE says] benefits: ...; no threat of calls being monitored

>> So, let's see: the phone calls are transmitted over radio now, so that
>> eliminates that threat of them being monitored?

> I suspect they were referring to monitoring by nosy neighbors on party
> lines.  Phone calls are carried all over the place by microwave.
> Although it's certainly possible to snoop if you really want to, the
> tightly focused beams require the snooper to be close to the line of
> sight between the two dishes, and there are usually multiplexing
> schemes more complex than your usual Radio Shack scanner can decode.

450 Mhz (As noted in the original post) is not 'microwave'. 'Dish'
antennas aren't normally used at these frequencies. I am, however,
confused about the message header (referred to "digital"). There
wasn't anything in the message about 'digital radio', which would be
difficult to monitor. The bandwidth required to run 24+ channels of
digital, on 450 Mhz would be pretty wide, considering that most of the
other services in the 450 Mhz band are NBFM (Narrow Band F.M.).

If anyone has more information on these systems, please enlighten us.


John Rice        K9IJ     |  "Did I say that ?" I must have, but It was
                          |   MY opinion only, no one else's...Especially
                          |   Not my Employer's....
rice@ttd.teradyne.com     |   Purveyor of Miracles,Magic and Sleight-of-hand
Date: 2 Jan 93 15:30:05 EST
From: crw@icf.hrb.com (Craig R. Watkins)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Panasonic KXT-123211 Software
Organization: HRB Systems, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 5, Message 2 of 9

In article <telecom12.927.8@eecs.nwu.edu>, petrisko@evax2.engr.
arizona.edu (William Petrisko) writes:

> Does anyone know of PC software available as a front-end to
> programming the Panasonic phone system?

I would also be interested.

> Also (just an annoyance factor) when dialing, it seems that the
> touchtone echo is *delayed* until you get to the third or fourth
> digit.  

I believe if you decrease your CO line "Pause Time" (default: 3.5 sec)
this may help your problem.  I believe the PBX is delaying your tones
from your CO line in order to give the CO time to provide dial tone.


Craig R. Watkins    crw@icf.hrb.com
HRB Systems, Inc.   +1 814 238-4311
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 01:50 PST
From: rmg50@ico.isc.com (Richard M Greenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: No CNID in CA Says PacBell
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 916, Message 1 of 11

In Wednesday's (12/23) {LA Times} business section, PacBell announces
that because the PUC did not ease the proposed restrictions on CNID
service, they will not offer the service at all.  Their main complaint
seems to be that people with unlisted numbers (aproximately 40% of
Californians) automatically be given the right, free of charge, to
block CNID on all calls.  (i.e. "per line blocking").
 
PacBell joins GTE which declined to offer CNID six months ago.
 
Starting in March '93, PacBell will offer three other Class features;
Call Trace, Call Screen (with a limit of ten numbers), and Call
Return.
 

Rich Greenberg      Work: rmg50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com  310-417-8999
N6LRT               Play: richg@hatch.socal.com      310-649-0238
What?   Me speak for Amdahl?  Surely you jest....


[Moderator's Note: My sympathy to the folks in California who believe
they have the right to know who is calling them on the phone. But even
without Caller ID, the screening service will be a valuable addition
to them, as it will enable (for example) BBS operators to lock out
crackers and phreaks who otherwise 'take a liking' to their system.
The neat thing about Call Screening is that you don't have to know the
number of the person calling, and often times who cares anyway. Just
add call screening to the first line of each hunt group; then when you
spot someone *on any line in the hunt group* you don't want to have
around, dump the call and immediatly go on the first line in the hunt
group and dial *60 #01# provided your syntax on this command is the
same as ours. If his was 'the last call received' he'll be gone, gone,
gone from your life. This works since the filter for screening sits in
the CO path *before* the decision is made to hunt, but it does require
that the call be to the lead number. If the caller dials direct into
a back line then he will get around the screening; if that is an issue
then add screening to those lines also. I believe (but won't swear to
it) that an IBT tech said to me once that all your call screening
filters could be chained or slaved to a master. Simple solution is to
only give out the lead number; never give out the other numbers and
always keep them sort of obscure and out of any logical sequence.  PAT]
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 07:04 PST
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: No Caller-ID in California
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 916, Message 2 of 11

As a result of the ridiculous requirements imposed upon the service by
the California Public Utilities Commission, Pacific Bell has announced
that it has no plans to offer Caller-ID at the present time. These
restrictions make it impossible to offer a viable product to
customers, according to Pac*Bell.

The two major stumbling blocks are the requirement for per-line
blocking (and the correlary requirement that ALL unlisted numbers be
blocked by default), and the stringent customer notification and
education that Pac*Bell would have to provide in advance of the
offering. Pacific Bell indicated that since forty percent of
residences in California have unlisted numbers, any Caller-ID offering
would be of little value to potential users.

So my heartfelt thanks go to each and every one of the staff and
commissioners who have deemed it necessary that Californians will
continue to be deprived of services that are commonplace in the rest
of the country. And we wonder why all the high-tech companies are
moving out!

By the way, no other state in the union has the requirements that the
CPUC has imposed upon the CNID offering. It is good to know that
anonymous and crank callers have people in high places looking out for
them. No where else but in California would this be the case. Too bad
the real, productive people in this state have no advocates.

For what it is worth, Pacific Bell will begin offering Call Block,
Call Return, and Call Trace beginning in March. As long as the person
who is being harassed cannot find out who is doing the harassing, the
CPUC has said that Pac*Bell can offer these services. Whoopie.


John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115     |       FAX:
john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407


[Moderator's Note: If PacBell wants to make an end-run around the PUC,
all they need to do is implement Blocked Number Call Blocking, and
educate their caller ID subscribers on how to automatically reject
calls from unidentified parties. When that forty percent with non-pub
numbers found out that fifty percent of the other subsribers were
refusing their calls, they'd soon ask for their number to start being
displayed by default also.  PAT]
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 13:31:54 -0800
From: Brent Chapman <brent@greatcircle.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Airfone Calls 911
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 916, Message 5 of 11

Here's a story from the November, 1992 issue of {Callback}, the
monthly newsletter published by NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting
System (ASRS).

"Dialing Dillies"

Pay telephones (Airfones) are being installed in increasing numbers
for passenger use on commercial aircraft.  A recent ASRS report
highlights one airfone use that we're sure aircraft operators never
anticipated:

After takeoff, crew noted ... no transponder received on left or right
by ATC and TCAS was inoperative.  While passing upwards through FL240
right pack trip "off" light illuminated, but reset was impossible
using irregular checklist.  This meant loss of pressurization
capacity.  At FL300 loss of second pack was indicated by the left pack
trip "off" light -- also not resettable.  Captain directed First
Officer to use oxygen masks and initiate emergency descent.  ATC
cleared aircraft to to FL240, then 15,000 feet, then 10,000 feet
enroute back to airport.  Cabin pressurization reached 9500 feet but
cabin oxygen masks never actuated ...

This flight was in sunny, dry conditions with no loss of controls or
engines ... [Crew later discovered that] a passenger in first class
used airfone to call 911, Highway Patrol, and report aircraft out of
control and in danger of hitting mountain.  In fact, aircraft was
never in danger of hitting anything, and except for initial pushover
of nose and actuation of speed brake to begin descent, operations were
mostly normal.

                        -----------------

For the benefit of our international readers, 911 is an all-purpose
emergency telephone number used in the U.S. for contacting
ground-based emergency services such as fire and rescue, police and
highway patrol, ambulance services, and other emergency services.
Some days you just can't win!


Brent Chapman            Great Circle Associates
Brent@GreatCircle.COM    1057 West Dana Street
+1 415 962 0841          Mountain View, CA  94041
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 22:09:17 GMT
From: Lance Ellinghouse <lance@markv.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Telco Service in Utah?
Organization: Mark V Systems Limited, Encino, Ca
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 924, Message 2 of 11

Can anyone answer these simple questions about Utah and their phone
systems?

1) Is CNID available?
2) What is a reasonable charge for installation?
3) What CLASS features are available in Utah?
4) Is ISDN available at all?


Thank you,

Lance Ellinghouse
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 19:50:59 EST
From: willard!peri@gatech.edu (Leigh Melton)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: GTE Betting the Bankroll on Wireless
Organization: Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- +1 (404) 664 8814
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 919, Message 12 of 14

GTE is betting the bankroll on wireless systems.  It's the number one
priority in Stamford HQ, or so I'm told by a friend who works for GTE.
They apparently feel that wireless is their chance to "dig ATT's
grave" and finally beat Ma Bell at a *different* game, as they never
could using current systems.  So far, the wireless PBX seems to be the
item that everyone is drooling over.


peri@willard.UUCP (Leigh Melton)   
gatech!vdbsan!willard!peri  emory!uumind!willard!peri   
Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- +1 (404) 664 8814
Date: 26 Dec 92 11:32:52 EST (Sat)
From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AOS Payphones @#$%%%$#
Organization: I.E.C.C.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 920, Message 2 of 11

> [Moderator's Note: Well, genuine Bell payphones don't seem to have
> those problems, and they are routed through a variety of carriers ...

Real payphones have calls charged and routed in the CO, which has the
advantage of real-time access to supervision info, not to mention
definitive digit decoding (i.e., if the CO can't decode it, you can't
call there.)

I do agree that COCOT manufacturers should be required to understand
all valid digit patterns if they attempt to decode them at all.  I've
noted in Telecom that the telco pay phones at the Newark and
Philadelphia airports have a COCOT-like hack in which they look for
calls to the "waiver areas" across the Hudson and Delaware rivers,
respectively, and prepend the appropriate 10XXX to route the call via
the telco's own LD service rather than AT&T.  BUT, and this is a big
but, if you dial your own 10XXX or anything else except a non-10XXX
call to the waiver area, the phone sends through exactly the digits
you dialed and never disables the tone pad.


Regards,

John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 19:22:15 EST
From: jeffj%jiji@uunet.UU.NET (Jeffrey Jonas)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Calling Card Collectors
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 927, Message 12 of 14

I took the Staten Island Ferry to work today and spotted strange
phones in the ferry terminal in Staten Island.  Large square yellow
metal boxes with a card slot.  They take a N.Y.Telephone debit card.
There was no information on how to buy one, and no vending machine in
sight.  The illustration showed a card with a strip with a guage
showing up to $2.50 credit.  My guess is that the card is punched or
marked as the credit is consumed.
 
Since I've moved several times the past three years (NJ-NY-NJ), I have
a fair collection of calling cards (NJ Bell, NJ Bell, AT&T, MCI,
Sprint, ITT).  Just how many can one have legally running at once?
 

Jeffrey Jonas   jeffj@panix.com


[Moderator's Note: You can have as many as you like and the telcos
will give you.  Just don't try to call Israel or Puerto Rico via AT&T
with an AT&T/Bell card. After all, as the AT&T operator explained to
me 'Israel does not accept our calling card ...' I tried to keep from
smirking when I heard that, but I guess it didn't matter, the poor
dear couldn't see me anyway.   PAT]
Date: 31 Dec 92 18:01:09 EST
From: Rob Bailey <74007.303@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Caller*ID->RS-232 Schematics
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 927, Message 5 of 14

If you didn't get your Caller*ID->RS-232 schematics and you sent me an
SASE, don't despair. I've been away on business and I will reply to
what I have left next week. My company will also be making a small
Caller*ID->RS-232 interface early next year for a pretty reasonable
price, along with some nice software; if you can wait, I'll post more
when we get close to release.

I received several green-stamps from people, which I will be
returning.  If you sent me anything but an SASE, you will get it back.
(Thanks for the thought, but I'm not in this for the $$.)


 ...de Rob WM8S (74003.303@compuserve.com or 304.925.2721)