HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
From: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk (Richard Cox)
Subject: OFTEL number changes                    
Cc: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk
Reply-To: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 12:22:00 +0000

dhd@exnet.co.uk (Damon) writes:

>>  I'd like to allocate a unique (soft) number to each of my dial-up
>>  customers so that the number is effectively their login name.

This is already available: and indeed is already happening.   But you would
have to pay for the use of the numbers, and some people wouldn't like that!

>>  Why not every service provider allocate a unique number per customer?
>>  Then the number would also be like a PIN or capability (Operating Systems
>>  term) and we'd want to make it pretty big, say up to 100 digits...

You've answered your own question.  The telephone number can function as an
identifier to route the call to you, and then claim who the caller is.  But
it cannot prove it - you need extra digits known only to the callers to act
as a proof of identity.  If it were not so, anyone could work out what your
"address space" was, and try all the numbers there.

When caller ID becomes available in the UK, you will not need any of this !
Richard Cox

Mandarin Technology, Cardiff Business Park, Llanishen, CARDIFF, Wales CF4 5WF
Voice: +44 222 747111      Fax: +44 222 711111      VoiceMail: +44 399 870101
E-mail: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk     Not diallable on 511 in mainland USA
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
From: aemmerson@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Emmerson)
Subject: Re: OFTEL number changes                
Cc: aemmerson@cix.compulink.co.uk
Reply-To: aemmerson@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 16:42:00 +0000

This is correct. BT has stated that it will not withdraw the 999 emergency
number, merely provide the pan-European 112 code in parallel. To my
knowledge, it is only Voodoofone that has stated it intends to withdraw 999
calls.
Andy Emmerson

>>>MATRIX version  1.21c
Xref: sparky uk.telecom:36 sci.electronics:18949
From: jon@hill.lut.ac.uk (Jon P. Knight)
Newsgroups: uk.telecom,sci.electronics
Subject: Re: Help required with Telephone project
Keywords: telephone
Date: 14 Nov 92 08:27:42 GMT
Organization: Dept of Comp. Studies, Loughborough University of Tech., UK.

In article <BxnpEK.4A2@exnet.co.uk> dhd@exnet.co.uk (Damon) writes:
>In article <1dub01INN76u@clover.csv.warwick.ac.uk> phudl@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr S J Liddicott) writes:
>>
>>Which reminds me: What does "indirect connection".
>>The easiest solution seems to me (easy as far as legalness) is to use
>>a real telephone in a soundproof box, interfaced like an old accoustic
>>modem and with a solenoid rigged up to to the hang up switch.
>
>I don't think even that will do legally.  By `indirect' the law
>doesn't just mean `electrically', I think.
>

Well it sounds ok to me.  I once was told by the Chairman of the BABT that
I could built accoustically coupled modems without seeking approval but
that it would cost >2000 quid to approve anything else (this was for an
A Level EDT project about 7 years ago, so things may have changed a bit
since then.  Actually, the situation in which he told me this was quite
interesting; I'd written to them asking for information on approvals
before starting to build it, and he actually rang me up to speak to me
personally about it.  It sounded (from the background noise) as though
he was phoning from his car phone.  Pretty impressive service I thought.
 If only BT were as good.... 8-) )

Jon



-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jon Knight, Research Student in High Performance Networking and Distributed
Systems in the Department of _Computer_Studies_ at Loughborough University.
** I can't even talk to you without the aid of chemicals or lies. - Pele **
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
From: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk (Richard Cox)
Subject: OFTEL number changes                    
Cc: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk
Reply-To: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 12:22:00 +0000

mark@mozart.demon.co.uk (Mark Whalley) writes:

>>  The dialled digits are only stored were the exchange can determine the
>>  destination number length. Once this is known then the digits can be sent
>>  en-bloc in an IFAM (Inital & Final Address Message), otherwise an IAM
>>  (Initial Address Message) is sent holding what has been dialled up to now
>>  followed by SAMs (Subsequent Address Message) with the further digits.

>>  Obviously it is not sensible for each node to know the dialling plan for
>>  the whole world !

This is true, but we were talking exclusively about calls within the UK: and
for those calls the digit length is determinable from a lookup table based on
the first 6 digits dialled.  So for UK calls one setup message would suffice.

Richard Cox

Mandarin Technology, Cardiff Business Park, Llanishen, CARDIFF, Wales CF4 5WF
Voice: +44 222 747111      Fax: +44 222 711111      VoiceMail: +44 399 870101
E-mail: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk     Not diallable on 511 in mainland USA
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: OFTEL number changes
Organization: Aston University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL241235]
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:20:37 GMT

Jeremy Folkes (jeremyf@cix.compulink.co.uk) wrote:
: In-Reply-To:  mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk (Richard Cox)
: 
: Mr Cox writes:
: 
: > "home banking" terminals.  These lines do need to be identified by numbers
: > even if they do not receive incoming calls.  So home banking does create a
: 
: This is something I always wondered about.  Although I can see very
: good administrative reasons for *all* PSTN lines having a national
: number, it isnt *really* necessary. Now that BT (and I presume other
: PTOs) have introduced separate account numbers, which at least for
: residential customers are allocated one per line, it should be
: possible to separate the "account" designation from the "port"
: designation from the "directory number". After all, we are only
: talking about the "customer visible" number..... the PTO can do
: whatever they like internally.

Consider the group 021 359 6531, there are infact 5 lines numbered consecutivly
021 359 6531 ... 021 359 6535.
Only the first number in the group can be dialed, and will get the first
free line, dialing any of the other 4 numbers will get an unobtainable message.
: 
: A non-dialable number (eg containing alpha characters) could be used
: if a phone number-like designation is needed (eg to identify the
: "line" for emergency calls).

The DTMF (touch tone) maps to a 4 bit code, so you could in fact use
hexadecimal rather than decimal for the numbering anyway.
: 
: Not that I think it'll ever happen, but worthy of some thought!
: Lots of good reasons why not but we seem to use the DN for more than
: we should.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 429 9199  (Home)                    |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
From: cei355@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Poldark)
Subject: Re: Sunday cheap calls
Organization: Coventry University
Distribution: uk
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:40:27 GMT

In article <6591@sersun1.essex.ac.uk> peter@essex.ac.uk (Peter Allott) writes:
>Can someone tell me is the Sunday call offer
>(1) Until Christmas    OR
>(2) Every Suday in November and December
>
>i.e. What about Dec 27th?


I think that it is a cheap gimmick that will carry on only till
midnight on the 27th December.(Well that is what the smallprint says
on the advert!).

-- 
               @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
                      Paul R Hicks (Poldark)
                     cei355@cck.coventry.ac.uk
               @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@        
Xref: sparky uk.telecom:38 talk.bizarre:38538
From: ken@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Ken Johnson)
Newsgroups: uk.telecom,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: OFTEL number changes
Date: 18 Nov 92 11:29:29 GMT
Followup-To: talk.bizarre
Organization: William's Wonderful Wonky Widget Warehouse


In article <920716140723@ibm3090.bham.ac.uk> J.K.Haynes@bham.ac.uk (John
Haynes) writes:

# I have just received my copy of the October/November issue of the BT
# Information Exchange Newsletter (issue 23). 
# 
#    ...
#    Nottingham, Bristol, Leeds, Sheffield and Leicester require both a new
#    code plus a local number update. 
#    ...
#    This will ensure a smoother change of apparatus, in particular automatic
#    alarms. 


BT is supposed to be a company that knows how to communicate clearly and
distinctly.  When I read sentences like the above, I sometimes think the
English language has no hope of survival. 

sensibly, Ken Johnson


-- 
                                   //// Ken Johnson, A I Applications Institute
CNS server brain not responding   ////       80 South Bridge, EDINBURGH EH1 1HN
... still trying                 ////                  E-mail ken@aiai.ed.ac.uk
                                ////       Phone 031-650 2756  Fax 031-650 6513
From: esufn@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr M A Humphrey)
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
Subject: Re: Charge advice has changed ?
Date: 23 Nov 1992 14:20:58 -0000
Organization: Computing Services, University of Warwick, UK
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: clover.csv.warwick.ac.uk

In article <1eqmhfINNnh7@clover.csv.warwick.ac.uk> esuln@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr J S Murray) writes:
>
>It appears that charge advice changed on Friday.
>On the phone that I share with 5 others, we always have charge advice enabled
>so that we may split the bill correctly.
>
>Before Friday, if the call was free (in BT's eyes) eg. Mercury, 0800 ...
>the exchange did not call back - ie it only called you if your call was
>chargeable - the minimum charge it reported was 10p (for a 2 second call)
>
>Since Friday, it always rings back - if it was a 'free' call, it makes the
>stupid noise you get when you dial into a payphone and then 'the woman' says
>'there was no charge for your call'.

I have found exactly the same thing. This change has occured at exactly
the same time as the change to 'level 4' call barring, which came up on
uk.telecom recently. Level 4 now no-longer bars calls to '131', they now
count as 'local' as far as the call barring software is concerned. This
is an improvement, but it now triggers the charge advice service, which
I leave on for the same reason as James. Even 0800 calls trigger it now,
but 150, also a free call, does not! As usual, the poor old '150' troops
don't have any information about any change! I've had 2 answers as to 
whether we will be charged 5p+VAT for each of these calls, one yes
and one no. I believe we will be charged, and Mercury will once again
have to complain to OFTEL, in order to get it changed. 

I know it's 'simply' a matter of taking charge advice off each time, and
then putting it back after, but it really shouldn't be necessary. After
all, the exchange never used to give this 'ringback' for 131 at all.


I look forward to any further info!

Cheers,

Mark.

Mark Humphrey
esufn@csv.warwick.ac.uk
From: G.J.Docherty@newcastle.ac.uk (G.J. Docherty)
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
Subject: Used Fax Machines: Information Requested
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:37:46 GMT
Distribution: uk
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU


Could anyone out there recommend a reputable supplier of 2nd hand (eg 
ex-rental) fax machines (anywhere in the country). I'm on the look out for one 
that I can use at home with my single BT socket, but I'm not too encouraged by 
the price of new machines (L300 is the cheapest I've been quoted so far, but 
was definitely for a bottom of the range model). I should think there must be a
lively market in 2nd hand systems (if only because of all the current economic 
situation), but where do they end up on sale?  Any advice would be much 
appreciated.                       

Gerry Docherty,
Dept. of Speech,
University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
g.j.docherty@uk.ac.newcastle
-- 

G. J. Docherty                             E-mail:g.j.docherty@uk.ac.newcastle
Dept. of Speech                             Phone:+44.91.222.7388 x8526
University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne             Fax:+44.91.261.1182
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
From: keith@unipalm.co.uk (Keith Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones - recommendation wanted
Keywords: cordless CT2
Organization: Unipalm Ltd., 216 Cambridge Science Park, Cambridge CB4 4WA, UK
Distribution: uk
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 12:20:11 GMT

cudac@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Tim Clark) writes:

>Any recommendations as to what type of cordless phone would work best?
>I imagine the typical `100m under ideal conditions' would be severly
>limited by all the concrete, steel and computers we have around.

>Are the CT2-based type likely to perform better? If so which cordless
>phones use this?

My experience with my Rabbit (the only cordless phone that uses CT2
you can buy I am aware of), is that you are unlikely to get the
claimed 100m range from a private base station. I have found the
only way you can get 100m or greater range is if:

	- You are using a public base station
	- You have line of sight to the aerial (no obstructions)
	- The public base station is of the type that has a ~0.5m long size
	  aerial. The smaller ones in little white triangular covers
	  (common on stations) have nowhere near 100m range.

You may get 56m range inside the same building using a private base
station, I would expect you would have to put it on the top floor,
and it will depend on what your building is made of. About 40m is
the best I have got from my private base with neighbouring houses in
the way. I haven't tried using the Rabbit in an electrically noisy
environment, but there no interference between it, my PC (SVGA) and
TV/VCR in my room.

>What is the practical limit to the number of cordless phones that can
>operate in an office block? - I've never seen details of the number
>of frequency bands available for this use. 

Rabbits support 10 handsets per base, I don't know if this is a restriction
of the hardware of the CT2 CAI standard. I think CAI defines 40 channel slots,
which would be the upper limit on conversations in one area.

Keith Mitchell                 Network Manager

Public IP Exchange             keith@pipex.net
216 The Science Park           keith@unipalm.co.uk
Cambridge, UK                  keith@uk.co.pipex	(non-IP JANET sites)
Phone: +44 223-424616
Fax:   +44 223-426868
Newsgroups: uk.telecom
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: Charge advice has changed ?
Organization: Aston University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL241235]
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:48:51 GMT

Mr J S Murray (esuln@csv.warwick.ac.uk) wrote:
: 
: It appears that charge advice changed on Friday.
: On the phone that I share with 5 others, we always have charge advice enabled
: so that we may split the bill correctly.
: 
: Before Friday, if the call was free (in BT's eyes) eg. Mercury, 0800 ...
: the exchange did not call back - ie it only called you if your call was
: chargeable - the minimum charge it reported was 10p (for a 2 second call)
: 
: Since Friday, it always rings back - if it was a 'free' call, it makes the
: stupid noise you get when you dial into a payphone and then 'the woman' says
: 'there was no charge for your call'.

The line I just tested this on has the same behaviour.
(this is a system X exchange anyone tested on a system Y, or with an 0500
number)
: 
: My main question is whether I am being charged for this service or not.
: I rang BT this morning and they were totally unaware of any change to their
: system. Nor were they able to tell me if I was being charged 5-6p a time for
: my free calls. Their only advice was to turn off charge advice each time.
: I'll have to do this even though it is a pain.

Who did you ring at BT, the number on the top of your bill might be a
better choice than 150, unfortunatly this is not a free call!
: 
: They did not seem certain of the exact operation of the system, claiming that
: the cost reported by 'the woman' does not include the charge for the service
: itself - although my minimum 10p reported seems to indicate the reverse.

So far as I knew the cost quoted was the cost of the call plus the cost of
the charge advice exclusive of VAT.
: 
: Can anyone help me with this question?

This looks like a software bug (or maybe a feature). A conditional is missing
preventing the charge advice module being called if the cost of the call is
free. (the designer of the code module giving the message appears to have
taken this into account, due the the different message)

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 429 9199  (Home)                    |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
From: jae@cstr.ed.ac.uk (John A. Elliott)
Newsgroups: uk.bcs.misc
Subject: C Eng
Date: 23 Nov 92 12:54:35 GMT
Organization: Centre for Speech Technology Research, Edinburgh University

Has anyone information on how to get one's C Eng through the BCS?

-- 
   \_    \_\_    \_\_\_\_  
    \_  \_    \_  \_        
     \_  \_\_\_\_  \_\_\_\_  
\_    \_  \_    \_  \_        
   \_\_    \_    \_  \_\_\_\_
From: dtm@castle.ed.ac.uk (D Muxworthy)
Newsgroups: uk.bcs.misc
Subject: Re: BCS-organisational problems?
Date: 23 Nov 92 13:31:03 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <By0nux.MyH@compsci.liverpool.ac.uk> mdb@csc.liv.ac.uk (Martin
Beer) writes:

>Angus, as you well know, the resources available to support Branches have
>been extremely limited for a number of years.  This has not only affected 
>the amount of money available to support Branch activities, but has
>also meant that the administrative support available to HQ has been very
>much reduced.
[stuff removed]

The obvious question to ask is, "why"? Given that all the average member gets
for his subscription is the branches, the specialist groups and the journals,
why does the council devote such a tiny percentage of its income to these
services and such a huge proportion to running itself, both through
professional staff salaries and expenses for council and other board meetings?

What is needed is a total change of priorities at budget time.  The other main
society of which I am a member is the Royal Statistical Society.  It has only
4000 members but has branches and specialist groups and produces three
excellent journals and a monthly newsletter all for #37 p.a.  And it has only
half a dozen professional staff. 

In the early 1970s I was on a BCS "futures" committee to consider grumbles
such as the discussion now going on.  At that time Maurice Ashill, the
secretary general, took much of the flak.  I formed the impression that the
society, at that time at least, was run by an inner coterie for their own
benefit and amusement, rather than for the benefit of the members.  Over the
past twenty years people have come and gone but little has improved. 
David Muxworthy
From: bj@dc.luth.se (B|rje Josefsson)
Newsgroups: swnet.general
Subject: Lista |ver satellit-"kanaler"
Date: 19 Nov 92 11:24:20 GMT
Distribution: swnet
Organization: University of Lulea, Sweden

Hej,

Jag undrar om n}gon har en lista |ver vilka "kanaler" som s{nds |ver
Astra-satelliterna. Jag {r inte (just nu) intresserad av frekvenser
och moder, bara namn och om det eventuellt kr{vs speciell dekoder.

Tack,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borje Josefsson, Computer centre, University of Lulea, S-951 87 Lulea, Sweden
Tel: +46 920 91 262 (direct), +46 920 91 000 (operator).  Fax: +46 920 912 45
Domain:  bj@dc.luth.se                Path: {uunet,mcsun,sunic}!dc.luth.se!bj
Newsgroups: swnet.general
From: d92adali@IDA.LiU.SE (Adam (Beowulf) Lidvik)
Subject: Re: Bokl}n
Organization: CIS Dept, University of Linkoping, Sweden
Distribution: swnet
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 10:44:46 GMT


>  Jag tycker att det mest ves{ntliga {r _att_ kyrkan skiljs fr}n staten.
>  Hur den kristna minoriteten sedan bekostar sin verksamhet beh|ver inte
>  vi andra l{gga oss i eftersom vi inte {r med och betalar. D{remot kan man
>  fr}ga sig hur man ska g|ra med kyrkan ofantliga tillg}ngar, vilka till 
>  stor del betalats av oss kollektivanslutna icke-kristna. 

Varf|r inte ta 50% av kyrkans tillg}ngar, eller s} m}nga procent som l{mnar
kyrkan, och ge pengarna till en nyttigare del av livet: Biblioteken.




Aprop} bokl}neri: I Link|ping har de inf|rt ett hemskt system, 
f|rseningsavgiften p}f|rs l}nekortet. Man k{nner verkligen att Storebror
vakar |ver en. F|rr kunde man smyga in med b|ckerna till l}nedisken och
l{gga dem obem{rkt.
Nu registreras det och n{r man ska l}na n{sta g}ng s{ger de att man {r
skyldig 55kr, t.ex.  Jag l}nar nu mycket hellre b|cker p} universitetet,
f|r att slippa STOREBROR..
		Ha en dag.

--
THE MIGHTY TINGELING.            Expressen och Aftonbladet r skit.
----------------------------
Small tingeling tingelinging
amongst other tingelings
create a tingeling damn tingeling
loud tingelingtingelining.
Newsgroups: swnet.politik
From: palm@admin.kth.se (Christer Palm)
Subject: Re: Bevara Sverige Svenskt - Uppf|ljning
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
Distribution: swnet
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:24:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.111618.27067@etek.chalmers.se> lindq@etek.chalmers.se (Johan Lindqvist) writes:
>In article <1992Nov22.184405.8101@kth.se>, tomas_e@LINK.Physchem.KTH.SE (Tomas Eriksson) writes:
>|> Och f|rresten, p} tekniska h|gskolor (ett ganska 
>|> dominerande inslag p} swnet) finns inga studenter, 
>
>Vad kr{vs f|r att en studerande ska vara student ?
>
Ett Universitet eller motsvarande icke teknisk h|gskola.

-- 
"Destiny makes relatives, selection makes friends."
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)
Newsgroups: swnet.politik
Subject: Re: Bokl}n
Date: 21 Nov 92 13:42:11 GMT
Distribution: swnet
Organization: Chalmers Tekniska Lekskola, G|teborg, G|taland

In article <1992Nov19.124028.24632@kth.se> md87-mpe@nada.kth.se (Magnus Pettersson) writes:
>Som tack f|r detta 
>v{cks jag varje s|ndagmorgon av en n{raliggande kyrkas klockor.

  Kyrkklockor en sanit{r ol{genhet m}nne?

>! Magnus Pettersson                         ! NEJ    !

-bertil-
--
"Ack! Phht!" - Bill the Prez
Newsgroups: swnet.politik
From: md87-mpe@nada.kth.se (Magnus Pettersson)
Subject: Re: Bokl}n
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Distribution: swnet
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 08:07:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.192130.13336@kth.se>, ulfb@ulfb.nada.kth.se (Ulf Berggren) writes:
|> 
|> Viktigare {r att fria kyrkan fr}n staten s} den mycket mindre del
|> av folket som ofta bes|ker kyrkan f}r st} f|r kostnaderna
|> sj{lva, entreavgift borde t ex f|rekomma...
|> 

Jag tycker att det mest ves{ntliga {r _att_ kyrkan skiljs fr}n staten.
Hur den kristna minoriteten sedan bekostar sin verksamhet beh|ver inte
vi andra l{gga oss i eftersom vi inte {r med och betalar. D{remot kan man
fr}ga sig hur man ska g|ra med kyrkan ofantliga tillg}ngar, vilka till 
stor del betalats av oss kollektivanslutna icke-kristna. 

-- 

============================================+========+
! Magnus Pettersson                         ! NEJ    !
! Stockholms Universitet                    !   till !
! E-mail: md87-mpe@nada.kth.se              !     EG !
============================================+========+